Skip to main content

Full text of "Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies For Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, And Promoting Terrorism"

See other formats


I I I I i ] / ; f 

FOR U N d/E R Ml l/N I N)G F RjE E D 0 M , A T T A C K I N: G| RELIGION 

I 1 i ■ . f It 






Lt. Gen. 


^,WND Books 


“Disinformation is a history of a still-hidden part of the 
Cold War — the part hidden as deeply as the KGB’s moles 
in Western intelligence services — which has to be studied 
to truly understand how communism sought to subvert 
everything in its path. Like Whittaker Chambers’ Witness, 
any study of the Cold War without Disinformation would 
be profoundly incomplete.” 

— JED BABBIN, former deputy undersecretary of 
defense and author of In the Words of Our Enemies and 
Inside the Asylum: How the U.N. and Old Europe Are 
Worse Than You Think 

“Challenging false histories and subtle slanders, Pacepa 
and Rychlak take us on a journey through the Empire of 
Disinformation. Here we learn the theory and practice of 
the Big Lie deployed against Christianity — against popes 
and bishops. We learn how the Kremlin, even after the 

collapse of Communism, continues its war against the 
West; we learn how dezinformatsiya is used to inspire a 
deep hatred of the Jews in order to mobilize Islam as a 
battering ram against Israel and America — to the benefit 
of Russia. If you want to understand the forces at work 
behind the decline of Christianity and the rise of militant 
Islam, you must read this book.” 

— JEFFREY NYQUIST, author Origins of the Fourth World 
War, columnist, and radio talk show host on WIBG 
(Ocean City, NJ) 

“As a Jew growing up in New York, I hated even hearing 
Pope Pius XII’s name. But after seven years of 
investigating and 46,000 pages of pertinent documents 
collected, I came to the startling discovery that Pius XII 
was revered and praised as a hero by all Jews during, and 
just after, the war. If you want to know how I billion 
people were tricked into hating him, read this book by 
General Ion Mihai Pacepa and Professor Ron Rychlak 
about the Kremlin’s still-secret dezinformatsiya. That 
immense machinery accomplished the worst character 
assassination of the twentieth century, and caused great 
strain between Jews and Catholics. But let me warn you: 
this book is scary! When you read it, you will discover 
how you were maneuvered like a chess piece to achieve a 
specific goal. You will also learn that the dezinformatsiya 

enterprise is still dividing the Judeo-Christian world with 
deadly international consequences.” 

— GARY KRUPP, chairman of Pave the Way 
Foundation, dedicated to reconciling relations among the 
world’s religions 

“Written by two foremost experts, this book is an eye- 
opening, demystifying work of political and historical 
archeology, a passionate and captivating endeavor to 
highlight the communist techniques of cynical deception, 
vicious plots, and perversely skillful concoction of 
propaganda legends masquerading as historical evidence. 
The authors display impressive erudition and unique 
insights into the deep secrets of the Soviet and post-Soviet 
disinformation machine. As a former highest-level 
intelligence officer within the Soviet Bloc who broke with 
the system for moral reasons and courageously exposed 
its terrorist underpinnings. Ion Mihai Pacepa is a 
formidable witness to and a respected analyst of the 
communist intrigues, schemes, and manipulations.” 

— VLADIMIR tismAneanu, author of Stalinism for All 
Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism, 
director of the University of Maryland’s Center for the 
Study of Post-Communist Societies, and president of 
Romania’s Institute for the Investigation of Communist 


WND Books, Inc. 

Washington, DC 

Copyright © 2013 

Ion Mihai Pacepa and Ronald J. Rychlak 

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be 
reproduced in any form or by any means — 
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, scanning, or 
otherwise — without permission in writing from 
the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief 

passages in a review. 

Book designed by Mark Karis. 

Cover illustration by Michael di Pietro — inspired by 
photograph by David Malan. 

WND Books are available at special discounts for bulk 
purchases. WND Books, Inc., 
also publishes books in electronic formats. For more 
information call (541) 474-1776, 
email, or visit 

First Edition 

Hardcover ISBN: 978-1936488605 
eBook ISBN: 978-1936488988 

Library of Congress information available 

Printed in the United States of America 
10 98765432 1 

WND Books 


To Mary Lou, who helped me look at my past through 

American eyes. 


To my daughter Lindsey and all the Lindseys in my life. 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to 

repeat it. 

— GEORGE SANTAYANA, The Life of Reason, vol. 1, 1905 

In Russia, “duck,” aside from its normal meaning, is a 

term for disinformation. 

‘When the ducks are flying’ means that the press is 
publishing disinformation. 

— PAVEL SUDOPLATOV, Deputy Chief of Soviet Foreign 


Special Tasks (Memoirs), 1994 


For the transliteration of Russian, we have followed 
the guidelines of the United States Board on Geographic 
Names, with the exception that iy and have been 
condensed into a simple y when they occur at the end of 
first and last names of individuals. A few familiar 
deviations have been retained, such as Yuri Andropov. 


Introduction by R. James Woolsey 
Foreword by Paul Kengor, PhD 



1. Drafted into the Securitate 

2. The True Meaning of Glasnost 

3. Defecting to America 

4. The Black Art of Disinformation 

5. The “Beauty” of Disinformation 

6. Kremlin Framings 

7. Stalin’s Encounter with Catholicism 

8. The Kremlin’s New Enemy 



9. The Failed Birth of “Hitler’s Pope” 

10. Cardinal Stepinac 

11. Cardinal Mindszenty 

12. More Framings 

13. Global War on Religion 

14. The Vatican’s New Crusade 

15. Liberation Theology 

16. Khrushchev’s War on the Vatican 

1 7. Preparations for Framing Pius XII 
13. The Deputy 

19. The Play 

20. Disinformation under Every Rock 

21. KGB Fingerprints 

22. r/ze ’s Anti-Semitism 

23. The Deputy's Ideological Roots 

24. Rolf Hochhuth 

25. A New Look at The Deputy 

26. Khrushchev’s Political Necrophagy 

27. Hitler's Pope, The Book 

28. Andropov’s Cocaine 



29. The End of America’s Innocence 

30. Khrushchev: A Monument to Disinformation 

31. Operation “Dragon” 

32. New Hard Proof of the KGB’s Hand 



33. From Disinformation to Terrorism 

34. Putin Time 

35. From “Hitler’s Pope” to September 11, 2001 

36. The Kremlin’s Nuclear Terrorism 

37. A KGB Empire 

38. Keeping the Lie-Machine Going 

39. The Antiwar Movement 

40. Marx’s Ghost Lives On 

41. Disinformation in Today’s America 

42. From Disinformation to Assassination 

43. Marxist Personality Cults and Heavy Water 

44. How I Became a “Filthy Jew Traitor” 






This remarkable book will change the way you look at 
intelligence, foreign affairs, the press, and much else 
besides. Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking 
defector we have ever had from a hostile intelligence 
service. As chief of Romanian intelligence he was for 
many years in the key meetings with heads of state and a 
participant in some of the most sensitive discussions by 
our enemies during the Cold War. 

For starters. General Pacepa tells us that intelligence 
collection is rather far down the list of what Romanian, 
and other Soviet Bloc, intelligence services were doing all 
those years. Intelligence collection, he says, “has always 
been more or less irrelevant.” I might add that whether 
you agree or not that this is accurate for the period of the 
Cold War, much intelligence collection is done today by 
hackers sitting at keyboards, not by case officers fine- 
tuning the location of dead drops. 

So what were Romanian and Soviet spies spending 

their time on in the Cold War years? General Pacepa 
would say “framing,” i.e. rewriting history and 
manipulating records, documents, etc., to bring that about. 
To what end this dezinformatsiyal Oh, little matters like 
using press leaks to destroy the reputation of a national or 
religious leader, engendering the spread of anti-Semitism, 
building up resentment against the United States or Israel 
in the Arab world. Soviet leader and long-time KGB head 
Yuri Andropov, apparently a real aficionado of 
dezinformatsiya, put it this way: ‘\Dezinformatsiya is] 
like cocaine. If you sniff once or twice, it may not change 
your life. If you use it every day though, it will make you 
an addict — a different man.” 

So, one might say, it’s understandable during the Cold 
War, but why now? And why are many governments in 
the Mideast essentially doing the same thing, such as 
spreading the crazy stories about 9/1 1 — that it was the 
CIA, or the Mossad? I would imagine it’s fairly 
straightforward: dictators need enemies to help them have 
more reason to suppress their people. And we’re very 

Another major understanding emerges from these 
pages. The communists had something between no 
ideology and a dysfunctional one. We have one that 
almost all Americans would sign on to: democracy, the 
rule of law, and America as, in Lincoln’s words, the “last, 
best hope of earth.” For most of us we also have our 
religion, generally Christianity or Judaism. This brought 

out for the Soviet Bloc, and brings out for our current 
enemies, a carefully targeted attack, or framing, to destroy 
religion: to spread anti-Semitism, to smear the reputations 
of a pope and other church leaders as anti-Semites when 
they actually worked hard to protect Jews during the Nazi 

General Pacepa also shows how one can undo even 
very carefully constructed dezinformatsiya, such as the 
1960s play The Deputy, trashing the reputation of Pope 
Pius XII by using accompanying literature, remarkable for 
the doctored photographs, the deceptive editing, etc. 

General Pacepa has written that there were more in the 
Soviet Bloc working on dezinformatsiya than in the armed 
forces and defense industry. It was, and to some extent 
still is, a remarkable effort. 

In spite of its perfection of the art of framing, its 
experience, and its motive as an intelligence dictatorship 
who needs us as an enemy, we may see as we move into 
the twenty- first century that Russia is not our major 
problem. Its demographics are awfiil (low birth rate, short 
life span for men) and its population could conceivably be 
under 100 million by the middle of the century. It lives 
almost wholly by selling oil and gas (and uses its leverage 
with gas to threaten its neighbors with cutoffs). But the 
substantial recent discoveries of shale gas in many 
countries, including the United States, Poland, and many 
other locations, could deal Russia a heavy blow. Its gas 

may not earn as much income and may be less useful as a 
weapon, and its oil may be replaced by much cheaper 
natural gas-based fuels such as methanol. 

None of us will feel too sorry for a shrinking group of 
mid-twentieth century Russians, sitting on the sidelines, 
desperately hoping to be noticed, with their cleverness in 
framing and the like increasingly irrelevant. 

General Pacepa and his distinguished coauthor. Prof. 
Ronald Rychlak, have done something remarkable in 
these pages. They have not only helped us understand 
history and many of the current dezinformatsiya 
operations that we continue to see — especially from 
Russia and countries in the Mideast — but also have given 
us a good start in learning how to defeat them. In short, 
they open a world that many of us didn’t know existed 
and almost all of those of us who did know had seriously 

— R. JAMES WOOLSEY, Chairman, Foundation for the 
Defense of Democracies, Former Director of Central 


Here is a work that many of us have been waiting for, a 
book that — dare I say — history has been waiting for. 
From start to finish, it is a gem of fascinating new 
information, a goldmine of badly needed, long-overdue 
Cold War material, a light into what truly was a world of 
darkness. The authors are most unique: Ron Rychlak is an 
expert on the much-maligned Pope Pius XII specifically 
and on the Catholic Church generally, particularly during 
the Cold War. Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest- 
ranking intelligence official to defect from the Soviet 
bloc, was, remarkably, a witness to many of the events the 
book describes. General Pacepa remains with us still to 
witness to the truth and to the litany of falsehoods — 
despite death sentences and a $2 million bounty set upon 

his head by the late Romanian despot Nicolae Ceau§escu. 

Thus, we have a rare confluence of a scholar of religious 
history and an eyewitness to the dirty deeds orchestrated 
by communists against the religious. Here we have literal 

scholarship with primary sources. 

The result is a book at once breathtaking and 
infuriating, and at times depressing. One is tempted to say 
that readers will not be able to put this book down, but 
readers may need to do just that simply to absorb the 
enormity of the information and to step away from this 
peer into the dark side. One can only look for so long 
before recoiling and needing a break. The sheer level of 
unapologetic, unmitigated, and sustained Soviet slander 
against religion and religious people, methodically 
unraveled by General Pacepa and Professor Rychlak, 
really is hard to endure. Yet, endure we must, because 
their story must be told. 

Anyone who has studied or been involved in the 
communist movement knows that communists had a 
campaign for just about everything they felt could be 
churned into propaganda that aided and abetted their 
purposes. Vladimir Lenin infamously stated that the “only 
morality” that his Bolsheviks recognized was that which 
furthered their interests. This meant that lying was fully 
justified, that any target was legitimate, and that it was 
always open season on identified targets. Combine this 
malice and moral relativism with what Mikhail 
Gorbachev called the Soviet “war on religion,” plus a 
network of servile communist parties around the world — 
all devoted to what George Kennan termed “the master’s 
voice” that spoke “infallibly” from the Kremlin — and you 
had a literal international conspiracy to demonize the 

most saintly of religious figures who stood in the Soviet 
way. The crass art of Kremlin deceit would be a vigorous 
tool in this sustained effort, a hellacious effort with no 
moral scruples. Only now, thanks to General Pacepa and 
Rychlak, do we have a documented account of the effort 
and its insidious offshoots. 

A running thread throughout this book is the case of 
Pope Pius XII, which makes perfect sense, given that the 
Pius case was at the nadir of the Soviet smear campaign, 
starting under Stalin and Khrushchev. The authors show 
that the attack against Pius was launched with a 1945 
Radio Moscow broadcast that first echoed the extremely 
unfair label “Hitler’s Pope.” The Soviets understood that 
Pius XII was a mortal threat to their ideology, despising 
communism as much as he did Nazism. They thus 
embarked on an unholy crusade to destroy the pope and 
his reputation, to scandalize his flock, and to foment 
division among faiths. 

General Pacepa and Rychlak have blown wide open 
the smear campaign against Pius XII. No one who reads 
this book will come away believing that Pius XII had ever 
favored Hitler or Nazism. And anyone who renders an 
opinion on the Pius controversy now must go through this 
book. In fact, anyone who does not cannot have his or her 
opinion taken seriously. With this book, the opening 
question posed to anyone with a negative perception of 
Pius as “Hitler’s Pope” must now be, “Have you read the 
book by Pacepa and Rychlak?” 

As this book crucially shows, the vicious myths 
created by communists to discredit Pius have, quite 
tragically, been unwittingly adopted by many mainstream 
historians and journalists. The myth, which was initially 
quickly rejected by a contemporary generation that lived 
through the real history and instantly knew better, picked 
up momentum among the next generations that did not 
live the history and did not know better. It has snowballed 
and has been allowed to soil the reputation of a good man 
who loved, helped, and even personally housed Jewish 
people during the Holocaust. The KGB and its 
accomplices perpetuated a poisonous image at complete 
odds with that reality. The image remains with us now. It 
is heartbreaking to see the rift that communists have 
caused between Catholics who rightly admire Pius — and 
even seek to canonize him — and their Jewish friends. The 
communists did this, and have been getting away with it 
— or at least until this book. 

This book conclusively exposes a host of damaging 
lies, well beyond the Pius case. Much of the history we 
thought we knew, or we thought we even recently 
uncovered, was actually spawned as communist 
disinformation. As the authors note, this was a war “that 
broke out in 1945 and has never ended.” The Soviet 
Union and Cold War are over, but the war on religion 
remains, unwittingly reinvigorated by misled scholars 
who have picked up “facts” that were never actually facts 
to begin with. 

The lies have been allowed to become “history,” to 
become “truth.” But what is truth? What is history? This 
book has the real history. In that sense, this is a seminal 
work that will start the process of remedying some serious 
mis-education and unforgivably flawed “scholarship.” 
And historians and scholars must carefully discern how 
General Pacepa and Rychlak got there: by hooking into a 
key concept that properly redirects historians and scholars 
to the truth — that is, understanding the outrageous and 
uniquely Soviet tactic of disinformation. 

This is a crucial angle. General Pacepa and Rychlak 
could have simply written a standard account of Soviet 
persecution from a faith-based perspective. As they 
peeled back the layers, however, they saw the rotting 
marrow that was disinformation — known as 
dezinformatsiya in Russian. Of course. General Pacepa 
already knew this, having lived it and, regrettably, been a 
reluctant participant. Now, making reparation, both he 
and Rychlak are able to explain to the world how 
knowledge of Soviet disinformation explains much of 
what we did not know, and, even more significantly, 
much of what we got wrong. They have focused the 
spotlight at an angle that offers historians a clarity that 
heretofore has been lacking. 

So patently dishonest was the Soviet use of 
disinformation that even the Soviet definition of 
disinformation, published in the 1952 edition of the Great 

Soviet Encyclopedia, was itself a form of disinformation. 
Only the surreal upside-down world of Soviet 
communism could produce such a litany of dishonesty. 
The late Vaclav Havel spoke of the “communist culture of 
the lie.”^ Here it is again, thrown wide open yet again. 
General Pacepa and Rychlak lift the scales from our eyes, 
and, as they do, we see a church on the cross, nailed there 
by merciless persecutors. 

But the authors’ concern is not merely the Catholic 
Church, or the Christian church more broadly. This 
groundbreaking book unravels not only the schemes 
against Pius XII and figures like Cardinals Stepinac and 
Mindszenty and Wyszynski. It shows the duplicity of 
groups such as the World Peace Council and World 
Council of Churches and Workers World Party; the 
bloody hands of surrogates from Vyshinsky to Romanian 
and Bulgarian intelligence; the Soviet role in liberation 
theology; the witting and unwitting roles of players like 
Romesh Chandra and Rolf Hochhuth and Erwin Piscator 
and I. F. Stone and Edward Keating and John Cornwell; 
the impact of paid agents, agents of influence, and dupes; 
the macabre black art of Soviet “necrophagy;” and much 
more. Most ironic, the book highlights the loathsome anti- 
Semitism behind the very conspirators of the original 
“Hitler’s Pope” campaign and other disinformation 
efforts. The chapter on the Soviet promulgation of the 
insidious Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy is an 
awakening. Here, the persecutors of Christ’s followers 

resurrected an old Jew-hating standby and spread it as 
gospel truth to the West. 

Indeed, the anti-Semitism documented in this book is 
shocking. The authors chronicle Yuri Andropov’s anti- 
Zionism campaign, support of Islamic terrorism, and dual 
promotion of virulent anti-Semitism and anti- 
Americanism among Middle East Arabs. By 1978, the 
Soviet bloc planted some four thousand agents of 
influence in the Islamic world, armed with hundreds of 
thousands of copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion 
— and military weapons. The seeds they planted in the 
Arab world decades ago still sow hatred and destruction 
in the form of violence and terror. Atheistic communism 
sought out a handmaiden in radical Islam, with extremist 
Muslims exploited by Soviet manipulators who hoped to 
besmirch Judaism and Israel and Christianity and 
America and the West — and too often with tragic success. 
They promulgated not only acts of terrorism but egregious 
acts of “diplomacy” like the infamous UN Resolution 
3379, declaring Zionism a form of racism. 

Alas, it is no shock at all — one supposes — when one 
sees that the perpetrators behind these varying forms of 
malevolence were the same political bandits who 
advanced an international ideology that snuffed out the 
lives of more than 100 million people in the twentieth 
century, twice the combined death toll of the two world 
wars. And “bandits” is not too strong a word, or perhaps 
political gangsters would be just as fitting. For anyone 

who feels such language seems a little over-the-top, well 
. . . you had better start reading, because you are in for an 
ugly education. This is a sickening saga of Soviet deceit 
that leaves one either wanting to take a bath or — ah, yes 
— maybe even go to church. 

Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ron Rychlak have 
done yeoman’s work. Pardon me if I say the Lord’s work, 
as my better angels override my scholarly objectivity. We 
owe a debt of gratitude to General Pacepa and Rychlak 
for exposing the devils and the details behind the 

— PAUL KENGOR, PHD, Profcssor of Political Science, 
Grove City College 




Down through the ages, everyone who has sat on the 
Kremlin throne — autocratic tsar, communist leader, or 
democratically elected president — has been preoccupied 
with transforming his country into a monument to 
himself, and with controlling all expressions of religion 
that might in any way impinge on his political ambitions. 

Furthermore, the Russian rulers have traditionally 
used their political police as the means for secretly 
carrying out their grandiose plans. Tsarism, communism, 
and the Cold War may have been swallowed up by the 
sands of time, but the Kremlin continues these traditions. 

Eventually, the Kremlin’s hand reached the shores of 
the United States as well. 

In March 1996, a sensational story jolted the 
American conscience. The National Council of Churches 
(NCC) and the Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR), 
two secretly Marxist organizations headquartered in the 
United States, held a joint press conference to announce a 

“huge increase” in the number of arson cases committed 
against black churches in the United States. 

On June 8, President Bill Clinton denounced those 
fires in a radio address, and he proposed a new federal 
task force to investigate them. The president spoke with 
emotion about his own “vivid and painful memories of 
black churches being burned in my own state [of 
Arkansas] when I was a child.” Charging that “racial 
hostility” was the driving force behind the fires, he 
pledged to place the full power of the federal government 
behind the investigation. On June 15, the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives assigned two hundred federal 
agents to a new task force charged to investigate black 
church fires. ^ By July the accounts of arson committed 
against black churches had snowballed, with more than 
twenty-two hundred articles appearing in the press to 
condemn what the Center for Democratic Renewal called 
“a well-organized white-supremacist movement.”^ 

The story spread like wildfire, inflaming decent people 
everywhere against the perceived American racists who 
had caused such terrible crimes. In Geneva, Switzerland, 
the World Council of Churches (WCC) — the international 
affiliate of the National Council of Churches — flew thirty- 
eight pastors to Washington, DC, to provide the American 
government and people with more information about this 
unprecedented racist tragedy.^ 

On July 13, President Clinton signed into law the 
Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, which made church 
arson a federal crime. On August 7, he also signed a 
spending bill that included $12 million to combat fires at 
churches with black congregations. A few days later, the 
NCC ran full-page ads in the New York Times, 

Washington Post and numerous other papers soliciting 
donations for its new “Burned Churches Fund.” On 
August 9, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NCC 
had “managed to raise nearly $9 million,” and that 
contributions were continuing to pour in “at about 
$100,000 a day. 

Then the bubble burst. It was eventually established 
by a private group, the National Fire Protection 
Association, that in recent years there had been far fewer 
church fires than usual, and law enforcement officials in 
the South could not confirm any as having been racially 
motivated.^ No church burning had occurred in Arkansas 
during Clinton’s childhood, in spite of his “vivid and 
painful” memories, and the National Council of Churches 
was accused of fabricating “a great church-fire hoax.”^ 

Average Americans looked upon the NCC/CDR hoax 
as simply a slip of the pen, and forgot about it. No one at 
home or abroad asked why the whole slanderous hoax had 
occurred in the first place. The political damage was done, 

The United States, which had paid with 405,399 

American lives to save the world from the evils of Nazi 
racism and the Holocaust, now found itself slandered as a 
neo-Nazi, racist country. Within a few years, over 40 
percent of Canadian teenagers were calling the United 
States “evil,”^ and 57 percent of Greeks answered 
“neither” when asked which country was more 
democratic, the United States or Iraq.^ In Berlin, a 
German cabinet minister, Herta Daubler-Gmelin, 
compared new president George W. Bush to Hitler.^ 
Western Marxists, such as Venezuela’s ruinous dictator 
Hugo Chavez also leapt into the fray, gleefully 
entertaining the United Nations in 2006 with an indirect 
(but clearly understood) reference to the American 
president by saying: “Yesterday, the devil came here. 
Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still 
today.” By 2008, in the United States itself, some 
leaders of the Democratic Party even began describing 
their own country as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm,” 
unable to provide medical care for the poor or rebuild its 
crumbling schools. 

The clue to understanding the significance of the black 
church arson hoax lies in the documented fact that the 
World Council of Churches, which ignited and promoted 
that story, has been infiltrated and ultimately controlled 
by Russian intelligence since 1961. T\\q Mitrokhin 
Archive, a voluminous collection of Soviet foreign 
intelligence documents smuggled out of the Soviet Union 

in 1992, provides the identities and Soviet intelligence 
code names of many Russian Orthodox priests dispatched 
over the years to the World Council of Churches for the 
specific purpose of influencing the politics and decisions 
of that body. In fact, in 1972 Soviet intelligence managed 
to have Metropolitan Nikodim (its agent “Adamant”) 
elected WCC president. A 1989 KGB document boasts: 
“Now the agenda of the WCC is also our agenda.”^^ Most 
recently. Metropolitan Kirill (agent “Mikhaylov”), who 
had been an influential representative to the World 
Council of Churches since 1971 and after 1975 a member 
of the WCC Central Committee, was in 2009 elected 
patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

The above slanderous attack on the United States and 
its churches was really nothing surprising. It reflects how 
the Kremlin has for centuries preferred to carry out its 
domestic and foreign policies by complicated deceptions. 
Religion frequently figures in operations of the 
traditionally cynical Russian leaders, who have 
considered themselves the only god mankind needs. 

Historically, the Kremlin’s manipulation of religion 
for its own political purposes dates back to the sixteenth 
century. When Ivan IV — the Terrible — had himself 
crowned in 1547 as Russia’s first tsar, he also made 
himself the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, as was 
recognized by the patriarch in Constantinople in 1591. 
Muscovy had only recently been liberated by the Turks’ 

overthrow of the Byzantine Empire, and it was from the 
latter that Ivan had inherited the idea of a “symphony of 
church and state.” The difference was that, instead of 
having an emperor and a patriarch — as in Byzantium — 
Ivan himself wore both hats. This merger of functions 
persisted through all the tsars down to Nicholas II, 
through all the Soviet leaders from Vladimir Lenin 
through Boris Yeltsin, and still lives on in Vladimir 
Putin’s Russia today. 

Ivan IV was also the first head of Russia to establish 
his own political police, the Oprichnina, or separate court. 
Created in 1564 under Ivan’s personal direction, it was 
mainly used to control the boyars who were threatening 
his reign. That tradition has also lived on, going through 
numerous name changes, down to the Soviet Union’s 
threateningly familiar KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy 
Bezopasnosti, or Committee of State Security) and 
beyond, to today’s FSB (Federalnaya Sluzhba 
Bezopasnosti, or Federal Security Service). Russia’s 
political police have always been responsible for keeping 
order in church and state, in accordance with commands 
issued by the man seated on the Kremlin throne. 

Up until World War II, Russia was basically 
isolationist — inscrutable perhaps to foreigners — ^with a 
love of tackling problems indirectly and clandestinely 
rather than head-on, but not considered a threat by the rest 
of the world. Centuries ago, the Russian tsars were not 
particularly finicky about concealing their hand when 

conducting deceptions. Their political horizons essentially 
ended at the Russian borders, and they knew the Russian 
peasants had infinite faith in their tsar and in their 
Orthodox religion, which he represented. Foreign visitors 
were not always taken in, but that did not matter. In the 
nineteenth century, for example, Astolphe, Marquis de 
Custine, wrote extensively about his travels in Russia. He 
railed against the “dexterity in lying” and the “naturalness 
in falsehood” that he encountered in 1839, such as when 
the tsar tried to overwhelm the visiting Frenchman with 
an illumination spectacle at the imperial palace. This 
display was designed to conceal the fact that hundreds of 
spectators had drowned when a sudden squall overturned 
their boats. “No one will ever know the truth,” he wrote in 
his diary, “and the papers will not even mention the 
disaster — that would distress the Czarina and imply blame 
on the Czar.”^"^ At the end of his trip, Custine concluded: 
“Everything is deception in Russia.”^^ 

It was during the preliminary period leading up to 
World War II that the Kremlin leader began seriously 
thinking about world domination and tinkering around 
with the organization and mandates of his foreign 
intelligence service. Elsewhere in the world, foreign 
intelligence services are primarily engaged in collecting 
information to help their heads of state conduct foreign 
affairs, but in Russia and later throughout the Russian 
sphere of influence, that task has always been more or 

less irrelevant. There the goal is to manipulate the future, 
not just to learn about the past. Specifically, the idea is to 
fabricate a new past for enemy targets in order to change 
how the world perceives them. Besides targeting Western 
governments — nowadays the United States in particular— 
the Kremlin has come to view the powerful Western 
religions as dangerously hostile threats. 

This brings us to the title of this book. Since World 
War II, disinformation has been the Kremlin’s most 
effective weapon in its war on the West, especially on 
Western religion. Iosif Stalin invented this secret 
“science,” giving it a French- sounding name and 
pretending it was a dirty Western practice. As this book 
will show, the Kremlin has secretly, and successfully, 
calumniated leading Roman Catholic prelates, 
culminating in Pope Pius XII; it almost succeeded in 
assassinating Pope John Paul II; it invented liberation 
theology, a Marxist doctrine that turned many European 
and Latin American Catholics against the Vatican and the 
United States; it has promoted anti-Semitism and 
international terrorism; and it has inspired anti-American 
uprisings in the Islamic world. 

In spite of Soviet communism’s demise, 
disinformation and its undercover international apparatus 
are still very much alive and well today. They continue to 
distort the way millions of people view the United States, 
they still manipulate religion — every religion — and they 
play a substantive role in fueling today’s international 


Mao Zedong would have been proud. He was famous 
for saying that a lie repeated a hundred times becomes the 



officer of the far-flung Soviet bloc intelligence 
community and its disinformation machinery, and my 
whole world was suddenly turned upside down. 

Up until then, all I had wanted in life was to go to 
“America.” That had been my father’s lifelong dream. He 
spent most of his working career managing the service 
department at the Bucharest affiliate of General Motors, 
the American automobile company, and he was firmly 
determined that one day he would gather up his family 
and emigrate to Detroit, where he had relatives. Trapped 
by World War II and then afterwards by the Soviet 

occupation of Romania, he was forced to give up that 
dream, though not before passing his love for America 
along to me, his only child. The moment the United States 
reopened its embassy in Bucharest after the end of the 
war, I became one of its enthusiastic visitors and soon 
joined the Young Friends of the United States, an 
organization sponsored by the US government. 

Furthermore, my best friend in those days, an older 
boy who was my idol, had already emigrated to the 
United States and was there waiting for me. The son of an 
engineer who had been employed by an American-owned 
oil company in Romania, he was my next-door neighbor 
and mentor until he left Romania just before the start of 
World War II to study in the United States. Then in 
October 1944, 1 observed a young American lieutenant 
stopping to stare at the rubble that had once been my 
family’s sturdy, two-story house. It had been flattened on 
April 4, 1944, during the first American bombardment of 
Bucharest. The lieutenant turned out to be my friend. 

“Where is Mother?” was all he could say when he saw 
that his house was also gone. 

“She died in the April 4 bombing,” I said. 

Visibly shaken, my friend, now “Lieutenant Bota,” 
said: “I was with the squadron that dropped the bombs on 
Bucharest that day.” 

We embraced. 

“You know,” he told me a few days later, as he was 

about to leave Romania again, “I have a nice place to live 
over there in America. Now it’s your home as much as it 
is mine.” 

Why, then, did I end up in communist Romania’s 
political police, the Securitate, instead of in America? 

Put very simply, I shot myself in the foot. When I 
graduated from high school, I decided to get my 
engineering degree before leaving for America. In that 
summer of 1947, when I was admitted to the Polytechnic 
Institute in Bucharest, the Kingdom of Romania had a 
coalition government in which only a few cabinet 
members were communists, and travel abroad was 
unrestricted. A few months later, however, the 
communists overthrew the king, took over the entire 
government and closed the country’s borders. 

In January 1951, when the first generation of 
Romania’s engineers and economists trained under 
communist rule were about to graduate, I was drafted as 
an officer of the massive Soviet bloc intelligence 
machinery. Under Soviet communism, where the 
government paid for your entire education, you really had 
no chance of choosing your employer. The government 
decided where you had to work, and that was that. 

I was distraught. But since I did not really know what 
“America” meant, I was not able to assign true 
dimensions to my loss. At the same time, I did not really 
know what the Securitate was either. Moreover, I was just 

beginning to enjoy a certain degree of popularity among 
my classmates because of my Ariciul (“The Porcupine”), 
a satirical magazine I put out filled with my own cartoons. 
After the Nazi troops had occupied Romania and turned 
the Bucharest General Motors affiliate into a military unit 
for repairing German cars and trucks, Father had opened a 
car repair business of his own. It was the only place in 
Romania repairing American cars, and he was doing so 
well that he bought me a car as a reward for being 
admitted to the Polytechnic Institute. That car, a small 
Peugeot, gave me a leg up among my colleagues, because 
there were only two other boys who had cars among all 
the roughly two thousand students at that engineering 

The saying goes that in the country of the blind, the 
one-eyed man is king. That’s what I was in the Securitate. 
That organization, established just a couple of years 
earlier, had at first been staffed with hastily recruited 
miners and other blue-collar workers. They were 
considered to be politically reliable, but most of them 
hardly knew how to hold a pen. Compared to them, I was 
a whiz kid. My father, who had started his life as a 
tinsmith in his father’s shop, had been determined to see 
that his only child would never need to touch a hammer, 
so he had spent every spare penny he earned on my 
education. At age nine I could play Beethoven’s Kreutzer 
Sonata on my violin, at twelve I was showing off 
Berlioz’s Idee Fixe at the musical evenings I would 

organize for my fellow students, and at sixteen I was 
lecturing on Marcel Proust’s In Remembrance of Things 

My education was, however, not the only factor that 
favored my intelligence career. A couple of months after I 
became a Securitate officer, I was called in by my boss, 

Capt. Panel Lazarovici, and told to report to the chief of 

the Cadre (personnel) Directorate the first thing in the 
morning. The look on his face reflected my boss’s 
commiseration. Cadre had already become a frightening 
word throughout the country, and the chief of the 
Securitate ’s Cadre Directorate was said to be a sheer 
terror. At least, that was what I had heard my fellow 
officers whisper. Just by lifting one finger, they said, he 
could have you promoted, demoted, or made to disappear 
into thin air. Of course, I was unable to close my eyes the 
whole night. 

My shirt clung damply to my back on that April 
morning in 1951 when I knocked on the mahogany door 
with the nameplate reading Director de Cadre. Had 
“they” learned about my old visits to the American 
Embassy? Or about the button with the king’s picture on 
it that I used to wear? I inconspicuously flexed the 
muscles in my neck to see if I was still wearing my chain. 
Was the cross hanging from it to blame? 

Finding myself in the middle of a room the size of a 
tennis court, I snapped to attention and blurted out, “Long 

life, Comrade Colonel! Jr. Lt. Ion Mihai Pacepa 

“Chert vosmir the voice behind the desk swore loudly 
in Russian. “By the devil, you’re already a grown man!” 

It took me a minute to realize that I knew that voice. 
That bulldog in uniform sitting behind the desk was the 
son of a man who had worked with my father at the 
General Motors dealership in Bucharest. His father was 
Carol Demeter — how could I ever forget him? From 
1938, when Carol Demeter had been arrested for 
communist activity, until 1944, when he had been 
released by the Soviet troops, my father had personally 
seen to it that the prisoner’s wife and son lacked for 

“Do you remember that slap your father pasted on my 
mug?” the colonel asked. His mustache bristled at me like 
porcupine quills. 

My flesh crawled. How could I forget? I had been 
with Father when he had finally located Demeter’s son, 
who had been hanging around with a gang of loiterers and 
had disappeared from home a few weeks before. The 
imprint my father’s heavy hand had left on the wayward 
teenager’s cheek still stuck in my memory. Father had 
never slapped me. He had used words, not slaps, to 
educate me. 

“Well,” Colonel Demeter said when I finally managed 
a nod, “that slap made a man out of me.” He explained 

that soon after that slap, he had started training to be a 
carpenter like his father, and then he had joined the 
Communist Party and found his way to the Soviet Union. 
“Now it’s my turn to pay your father back.” 

My father never gave me the slightest hint that he had 
ever spoken to Colonel Demeter about me. Nor did 
Colonel Demeter actually say they had talked, although 
for the next ten years I would physically sense his 
protective hand cupped around me. Only once, in 1954, 
when he went out of his way to see that my father was 
buried with great military pomp, did he take credit for 
looking out for me. In his funeral oration for my father. 
Demeter, by then a Securitate general, rested an enormous 
paw on my shoulder and addressed the coffin: “Rest in 
peace. Your son is in good hands.” 

In March 1953, Stalin died ignominiously, while trying to 
sober up in a scorching sauna after a long drinking bout 
with his crony, Nikita Khrushchev. Today, few Russians 
like to admit that they ever worshiped Stalin. Not many 
Nazi admirers could be found in Germany after World 
War II, either. But on March 6, 1953, four million people 
wept in Red Square at Stalin’s funeral. Sirens wailed, 
bells tolled, cars blew their horns, and work stopped all 
around the country. The whole Soviet bloc felt that an era 
of history had passed into oblivion with this man whose 

name had been synonymous with communism. 

At that time, I was already a Soviet bloc intelligence 
officer. I was not yet, however, aware that a Soviet 
leader’s image was so important that he would go to any 
lengths — even to the point of killing and imprisoning 
millions, rewriting history, destroying institutions, 
manipulating religion, and changing traditions — all in an 
effort to beatify himself or to demonize his competitors 
and enemies. Soon thereafter, however, I would be 
assigned to the inner circle of the despot’s enormous 
dezinformatsiya machinery, which was responsible for all 
that image-building. 

Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, began his reign 
by executing the whole leadership of Stalin’s political 
police as traitors, so as to give the appearance that he 
condemned his predecessor’s crimes. That had become a 
rite of succession in the Soviet Union. Only one of the 
first eight chiefs of the Soviet state security service who 
served between 1917 and 1954 is known to have died a 
natural death — Semen Ignatyev, who vanished into thin 
air in 1953, then reappeared at a provincial post and died 
of natural causes in 1983.^ Feliks Dzerzhinsky, the 
founder of that organization, died suspiciously of a stroke 
in 1926, after an argument with Stalin.^ The rest were 
either poisoned (Vyacheslav Menzhinsky in 1934) or 
executed as traitors and spies (Genrikh Yagoda in 1938, 
Nikolay Yezhov in 1940, Lavrenty Beriya and Vsevolod 

Merkulov in 1953, Viktor Abakumov in 1954). 

To be on the safe side, Khrushchev executed his spy 
chief, Vladimir Dekanozov, as well, replacing him as spy 
chief with General Aleksander Sakharovsky, the chief 
Soviet intelligence adviser to Romania, who had been my 
de facto boss and mentor in Romania. That brought me 
into Khrushchev’s inner circle. During the ensuing years, 

I would be pushed to the top of Romanian foreign 
intelligence and would become involved in some of 
Khrushchev’s most important foreign political projects, 
from his brutal crushing of the 1956 Hungarian uprising 
to his construction of the Berlin Wall and provocation of 
the Cuban missile crisis. 

Many years later I would look back on all these events 
and reflect on how they swept me into another world and 
put an end to any hope I had of working as a chemical 
engineer, to say nothing of becoming an American. Now, 
however, that I have finally been fortunate enough to 
settle down in this country of my father’s and my own 
youthful dreams, I have come around to understanding 
that the path I was channeled into taking may have been, 
in at least one respect, a blessing in disguise. Eventually 
my intelligence career afforded me unique insights into a 
system of government that has changed the course of 
history. In fact, because Romania was a relatively small 
country, I believe that I, as its top intelligence officer, 
very possibly had a clearer picture of how the Kremlin 
and its dezinformatsiya really functioned than perhaps all 

but the very innermost Soviet inner circle. 




Fast-forward to January 1972. Romanian tyrant 
Nicolae Ceau§escu returned from the Kremlin more 

excited than I had ever seen him before. “You go to 
Moscow,” he told me at the airport, extending four limp 
fingers in my direction. “We’re pulling off a big 

glasnost'' I soon learned that Ceau§escu had spent his 

entire Moscow trip talking about public relations 
strategies with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and his 
KGB chief Yuri Andropov. The two Soviets believed the 
West had reached the historic point where it was eager to 
encourage the least sign of thaw in a communist leader. 

To test this conclusion, they wanted to build Ceau§escu 

up and make him a big box-office success in the West, as 
a trial run preparatory to launching the same trick with the 
man in the Kremlin. 

You probably think Mikhail Gorbachev invented the 
concept of glasnost to describe his effort to lead the 
Soviet Union “out of its totalitarian state and to 
democracy, to freedom, to openness,” as he wrote. ^ If so, 
you are not alone. All of the media and most of the 
“experts,” even in Western defense establishments, 
believe that too — as does the committee that awarded 
Gorbachev the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the venerable 
Encyclopedia Britannica defines glasnost as “Soviet 
policy of open discussion of political and social issues. It 
was instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s and 
began the democratization of the Soviet Union. 
Merriam-Webster agrees.^ And the American Heritage 
Dictionary defines glasnost as “an official policy of the 
former Soviet government emphasizing candor with 
regard to discussion of social problems and 

But in fact, glasnost is an old Russian term for 
polishing the ruler’s image. Originally it meant, literally, 
publicizing, i.e., self-promotion. Since the sixteenth 
century’s Ivan the Terrible, the first ruler to become Tsar 
of All the Russias, all of that country’s leaders have used 
glasnost to promote themselves inside and outside the 


In the mid- 1930s — half a century before Gorbachev’s 
glasnost — the official Soviet encyclopedia defined 
glasnost as a spin on news released to the public: 
''Dostupnost obshchestvennomy obsuzhdeniyu, kontrolyu; 
publichnost,'' meaning, “the quality of being made 
available for public discussion or manipulation.”^ 

Thus, back in the days when I was still a member of 
the KGB community, glasnost was regarded as a tool of 
the black art of dezinformatsiya, and it was used to 
sanctify the country’s leader. For communists, only the 
leader counted. They used glasnost to sanctify their own 
leaders, and to induce hordes of Western leftists to fall for 
this scam. 

Glasnost is one of the most secret secrets of the 
Kremlin, and certainly one of the main reasons for still 
keeping the KGB’s foreign intelligence archives 
hermetically sealed. The Cold War is over, but the 
Kremlin’s glasnost operations seem to be still en vogue. 

In August 1999, only days after Vladimir Putin was 
appointed Russia’s prime minister, the KGB’s 
dezinformatsiya machinery, capitalizing on the fact that 
he had spent many years in Germany, started portraying 
him as a Europeanized leader. (The fawning stories 
neglected to mention that he had been assigned to East 
Germany, a Soviet satellite at the time.) That same year, I 
went with my wife — an American writer and intelligence 

expert — to visit Leipzig and Dresden and tour the 
menacing buildings that had housed the Stasi (communist 
East Germany’s political police) headquarters where Putin 
had in fact spent his “Europeanizing” years. We learned 
that the local Soviet-German House of Friendship — 
headed by Putin for six years — had been in fact a KGB 
front, and that the undercover KGB officers running it had 
simply worked out of operational offices at the Leipzig 
and Dresden Stasi headquarters. We even sat in Putin’s 
chair, now a museum piece. 

Those prison-like Stasi buildings had been cut off 
from even the normal and colorless East German life by 
Stasi guards brandishing machine guns and flanked by 
police dogs. Yet, even today, the Kremlin still 
reverentially implies that Putin’s experience in Germany 
was similar to that of Peter the Great, allowing him to 
absorb the best of European culture. 

At the end of the 2001 summit meeting held in 
Slovenia, President George W. Bush said: “I looked the 
man [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very 
straightforward and trustworthy.” Unfortunately, even 
President Bush was deceived by glasnost. Putin 
consolidated Russia into an intelligence dictatorship, not a 
democracy. By 2003, more than six thousand former 
officers of the KGB, who had framed millions as Zionist 
spies and shot them, were running Russia’s federal and 
local governments. Nearly half of all top governmental 

positions were held by former officers of the KGB.^ It 
was like democratizing Nazi Germany with Gestapo 
officers at its helm. 

On February 12, 2004, Putin declared the demise of 
the Soviet Union a “national tragedy on an enormous 
scale.” Nevertheless, most of the world still sees him as a 
modem Peter the Great. That is the secret power of 

“A man like me is bom only once every five hundred 

years,” Ceau§escu would proclaim, over and over again, 

after 1972. That was his glasnost, and, unfortunately, I 
was deeply involved in it. 

For those who do not remember Ceau§escu, let me just 

say that he was more or less a Romanian version of the 
current Russian president, Vladimir Putin — an empty suit 
who morphed into his country’s president without having 
held any productive job, who knew nothing about how the 
real world worked, and who believed that lying to the 
world and killing off his critics were the magic wands that 

would keep him in power. Like Putin, Ceau§escu had 
supervised his country’s political police organization 
before becoming president. Behind the scenes, Ceau§escu, 
like Putin, used his intelligence machinery to override 

party politics as a means to power. Like Putin, he made an 
effort to detract attention away from his humble and 
colorless past by making his imperial dreams come true. 
And of course, they both ascended to the throne driven by 
the secret ambition to hang onto it for life. 

After getting my marching orders from Ceau§escu in 

1972, 1 was in Moscow a week later. KGB chairman 
Andropov greeted me by getting right to the point: “The 
only thing the West cares about is our leader.” He was 
famous for not wasting his breath on introductory 
chitchat. “The more they come to love him, the better they 
will like us,'' he said. Making the imperialists believe our 
leaders admired them was the most efficacious glasnost 
tactic for now. It was as simple as that, and it worked, he 
said. The KGB had already achieved great success in 
making certain elements in the West admire — and even 
love — “the Comrade” (meaning first Stalin, then 

Andropov’s dark, cavernous office breathed secrecy 
from every inch of its thick walls, just as his new glasnost 
did. The velvet window draperies were closed, and the 
only light came from the flickering flames of a fire inside 
the fireplace. The chairman’s ascetic fingers felt cold and 
moist when he shook my hand. He took a seat on the side 
of the table facing the warmth of the fireplace, not at the 
head, as Soviet bureaucratic protocol required. His kidney 
illness had worsened and he needed to keep warm, so as 

to avoid having to go to the bathroom too often during a 

“Let the gullible fools believe you want to perfume 
your communism with a dab of Western democracy, and 
they will clothe you in gold,” Andropov declared. The 

creation of the image of the “new Ceau§escu” should be 

planted like opium seeds — patiently but tenaciously, one 
by one by one. We should water our seeds day after day 
until they bear fruit. We should promise that more 
openness and Westernization will be forthcoming, if only 

the West helps our new “moderate” Ceau§escu to defeat 
his “hardline” opponents at home. 

Some two hours later, the KGB chairman concluded 
our meeting as abruptly as he had started it: “ITl lay you a 
million to one that the West will swallow it.” 

When I left the Lubyanka (KGB headquarters), I took 
with me a devious glasnost plan for image reconstruction. 

Ceau§escu followed it to the letter. He rebaptized the 

Grand National Assembly, Romania’s version of the 
Supreme Soviet, as “Parliament,” added a few religious 
leaders to it, and declared it the country’s governing body. 
Of course, it remained the same rubber-stamp 

organization Romania had had before. Next, Ceau§escu 

publicly called for the Communist Party to reduce its 
influence on the administration and the economy of the 
country. That was another inspired glasnost trick. Then 

Ceau§escu staged a simulated economic decentralization, 

instituted dual candidates for local elections, and 
announced a campaign against corruption and 

That done, Ceau§escu created the national position of 

“president,” endowed it with broad governing powers, 
and awarded himself the post. 

To impress the religious, Ceau§escu even marched 

behind a metropolitan of the church and a clutch of priests 
at his father’s funeral. Lastly, he developed a specialty of 
telling anti-Soviet jokes. 

It worked like a charm. Bucharest became an East 
European mecca, filled to the brim with Western 
journalists and politicians eager to get a closer look at the 
man who had dared to change communism for the better. 
A celebrity was bom. 

Western businessmen mshed to Bucharest, hoping to 
get in on the ground floor for a slice of the new Romania. 
Of course, most of them had been lured there by my 
undercover DIE (Romania’s foreign intelligence service) 
operatives, who went to great lengths to pamper them 
during their stay. Gradually, my undercover officers 
became expert at “rewarding” the “friendly” visitors by 

setting up interviews for them with Ceau§escu, inviting 

them to lavish banquets held in Romania’s picturesque 
monasteries, carousing with them at all-night parties and 

finding them compliant girlfriends. Or even by involving 
them in profitable businesses. 

Today, no one remembers that Ceau§escu was once 

Washington’s fair-haired boy. Contemporary political 
memory seems to be increasingly afflicted with a kind of 
a convenient Alzheimer’s disease. But two American 

presidents went to Bucharest to pay Ceau§escu tribute, 

when none had ever gone there before. To cap it all off, 
my lord and master began a royal junket around the free 
world to sell his image — the United States, Japan, France, 
Italy, the Vatican, Finland, West Germany, Spain, 
Portugal, Egypt, Jordan, and the Philippines, to mention 
only a few of his hosts. 

On all of these trips, Ceau§escu kept me at his right 

hand. He now religiously believed that glasnost, not 
Marxist ideology, was the magic wand that would make 
his ambitions a reality. 

In 1978, 1 accompanied Ceau§escu on his fourth and 

most triumphant trip to Washington, and I was next to 
him when he took a historic drive throughout London 
with Queen Elizabeth in the British royal coach. Few now 
remember it, but a steady stream of front-page articles on 
Romania appeared in the United States, Great Britain and 

Western Europe at that time, extolling Ceau§escu’s new 
“Westernized communism.” The tyrant was portrayed as a 

new breed of communist ruler, one the West could do 
business with. Romania seemed a normal country — a 
place where people could criticize their government, visit 
monasteries, listen to Western symphonies, read foreign 
books and even point to their stylish first lady. 

We were also quite successful at filling Western media 

airwaves with the new image of Ceau§escu. The truth is, 

the Western media are quite easily manipulated, for they 
often craft their stories from press releases and tend, on 
the whole, to be indiscriminate about the nature and 
reliability of their sources. Our information fit quite well 
with the general mood of Western acceptance of 

Ceau§escu as a Westernized communist. In the West, his 

position generally seemed a plausible and historic breach 
in the Iron Curtain, and almost no one stepped up to check 
the facts and contradict us. 

In 1982, Yuri Andropov, the father of the modem 
Soviet dezinformatsiya era, became mler of the Soviet 
Union itself, and glasnost became a Soviet foreign policy 
as well. Once settled in the Kremlin, the former KGB 
chairman hastened to introduce himself to the West as a 
“moderate” communist and a sensitive, warm. Western- 
oriented man who allegedly enjoyed an occasional drink 
of Scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved 
listening to Beethoven and American jazz. In reality, 
Andropov did not drink at all, for he was already 
terminally ill from a kidney disorder. The rest of the 

portrayal was equally false — as I well know, having been 
quite well acquainted with Andropov. As for “moderate,” 
any head of the KGB necessarily had hands drenched in 

In the brief span left to him, the cynical Andropov 
focused on projecting his new image and promoting his 
protege, a vigorous and callous young professional 
communist who was busy honing the same moderate 
image for himself — Mikhail Gorbachev. 

Gorbachev introduced himself to the West exactly as 
Andropov had: a cultured sophisticate and aficionado of 
Western opera and jazz. The Kremlin has always known 
that this picture holds particular charm for the gullible 

Gorbachev is thought to have been recruited by the 
KGB in the early 1950s while studying law at Moscow 
State University, where he spied on his foreign 
classmates.^ As long as the KGB archives remain sealed, 
we will not be able to learn more details about those years 
of Gorbachev’s life. But we do now know that after 
graduating from the university, Gorbachev interned at the 
Lubyanka, the state security headquarters,^ where he 
came under Andropov’s influence. Both had begun their 
careers in Stavropol. Andropov got Gorbachev appointed 
to the Soviet Politburo, and one Gorbachev biographer 
even describes him as Andropov’s “crown prince.”^ 

Meanwhile, the West’s admiration for Ceau§escu’s 

glasnost took on such a life of its own that it could not be 
stopped. In a letter dated January 27, 1983, written to 

Ceau§escu on his birthday. President Richard Nixon, 

whom I had already briefed about Ceau§escu’s glasnost 
after I defected to the United States, gushed: 

Ever since we first met and talked in 1967, 1 have watched 
you grow in stature as a statesman. Your vigor, your single- 
mindedness, your acute intelligence — and especially your 
ability to act skillfully on both domestic and international 
fronts — place you in the first rank of world leaders ... At 
65 most people are ready to retire, but for many of the 
greatest leaders the most productive and satisfying years 
are still ahead. I am certain that your best moments will 
come in your second decade as President as you continue to 
follow the bold, independent course you have set for your 


The late Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, for 
whose staunch anti-communism I have high regard, told 

me in 1988 that Ceau§escu “may be crazy with his own 

people, but believe me. General, he is the one who’ll 
break up the Soviet bloc.” A few months later, however, 

Ceau§escu was executed by his own people at the end of a 

trial in which the accusations came almost word-for-word 
out of my book Red Horizons: The True Story ofNicolae 

& Elena Ceau§escu 's Crimes, Lifestyle and Corruption. 

By that time, however, Washington and the rest of the 
West had shifted their affections. Now it was the man in 
the Kremlin, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was seen as the 
nascent democrat and touted as a political visionary. Once 
again, the Western media appeared to swallow their own 
hype. Gorbachev’s rhetoric about combining “communist 
values” with “Western democracy introduced from the 
top” and a “centralized free-market economy” enthralled 
the world. Piles of Gorbachev’s Perestroika: New 
Thinking for Our Country and the World took the place of 

Ceau§escu’s memoirs in bookstore windows. 

So much for institutional memory. 

In December 1987, when Mikhail Gorbachev went to 
Washington, I had the weird dejd vu feeling of watching a 

reenactment of Ceau§escu’s last official visit to the United 

States in April 1978. 1 had prepared and directed that 
visit, and during its actual performance I had also 

accompanied Ceau§escu. 

To my mind, the two communist leaders were 
uncannily alike in both appearance and actions. Both men 
were short in stature — like most dictators. Both brought 
their foreign intelligence chiefs along with them — as 
most communist rulers did. Both boosted their national 
history and culture, reciting poems by their famous 
writers. Both were said to be fans of American movies. 
Both strode into Washington with firm step and swinging 

arms, wearing equally broad smiles on their faces and 
almost identical Italian suits of impeccable conservative 
cut on their stocky bodies. Both chose to wear a business 
suit to the black-tie dinner at the White House — 

Ceau§escu always said that the black tie was the ultimate 

symbol of capitalist decay, an opinion that caused me 
many a protocol headache on his visits abroad. 

Both Gorbachev and Ceau§escu welcomed every 

photo opportunity in the United States, clearly indicating 
that they considered the American media the most 
effective way to polish their international image. 
Gorbachev’s arrival was preceded by an NBC interview, 

just as Ceau§escu’s had been by one with the Hearst 

newspapers. Both publicly used Washington to reaffirm 
their deep devotion to Marxism, although both had to 
acknowledge that their communist systems at home were 
in deep trouble. (Translation: send money.) And both 
were not shy about letting the West know their 
determination to stay in power for the rest of their lives. 

After formal ceremonies, official document signing, 
and the requisite exchange of fancy dinners, Gorbachev 

again followed in Ceau§escu’s footsteps by turning on the 

charm for members of Congress and high-level American 
businessmen. Both groups have often made themselves 
useful to foreign despots. 

Both Gorbachev and Ceau§escu came to Washington 

accompanied by their wives, a diplomatic first. Both first 
ladies were promoted as intellectuals in their own right. In 
Washington, the Romanians publicized a scientific study 

by Elena Ceau§escu — actually ghostwritten by my DIE. 

Soviet advance publicity glowed over Raisa Gorbachev’s 
university dissertation, even getting excerpts from it 
published in the American press. On her fourth visit to 

Washington, Elena Ceau§escu demanded that I get her an 

American academic title. It was not easy, but I managed 
to arrange a ceremony at Blair House making her an 
honorary member of the Illinois Academy of Science. 
Raisa Gorbachev returned to the United States in 1990 
and was honored at a highly publicized Wellesley College 

Toward the end of their visits, both Eastern bloc 
leaders received a taste of American democracy in action. 

Ceau§escu had to face the thousands of Romanian and 

Hungarian emigres who besieged his residence at the 
Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York, calling him 
“Dracula” for his ultra-Marxist domestic policies. 
Gorbachev had to put up with a large demonstration 
asking for the right of Jews to emigrate from the Soviet 
Union. Those confrontations momentarily caused both 
communist leaders to let slip their smiling masks, 
allowing a glimpse of their steel teeth. In the end. 

however, both won the American public back over to their 
side by stopping their motorcades and impulsively 
plunging into the crowd to shake hands. 

In retrospect, it is easy to see that all of this was a 
product of sophisticated dezinformatsiya experts and 
public relations crews, employing all their reliable, 
smoke- and-mirrors framing techniques. 

At the time, however, both leaders were perceived as 
modem pragmatists who deserved to be supported. 

Indeed, they were believed by many in diplomatic and 
academic circles to really be — deep down — on America’s 
side. It was argued that they needed US support to help 
them in impending tough stmggles with their own 
domestic “hardliners.” 

I do not mean to imply that the mighty Gorbachev 
would necessarily have been trying to copy Ceau§escu 
word for word and step by step, but Andropov’s 
resounding success at stage-directing Ceau§escu was 

certainly there for Gorbachev to consider. It seems 
particularly significant that Gorbachev, a couple of weeks 
after returning home from his 1987 trip to Washington, 

quietly awarded Ceau§escu the Order of Lenin, the 

highest decoration in the Soviet bloc, in spite of the two 
men’s strong public differences. As far as I know, 

Ceau§escu was the only East European leader Gorbachev 
ever decorated with that high award. 

I noted only one fundamental difference between 
Gorbachev’s and Ceau§escu’s strategies to butter up the 

West. Three months after Ceau§escu left Washington, the 

acting chief of his foreign intelligence service — this writer 
— was granted political asylum by the United States. 

That event shattered the smiling mask Ceau§escu had 

worn in Washington and allowed the inner workings of 
his glasnost machine to lie spread out on the table for all 
to see. From among Gorbachev’s innermost circle, no one 
has yet stepped forward with the truth about that last 
Soviet monarch’s methods of governing the country and 
about his still-admired glasnost. 

At the beginning of 2001, Gorbachev was still 
publicly asserting that his glasnost (for which he had been 
granted the Nobel Prize and named “Man of the Decade” 
by Time magazine) was “leading the country out of its 
totalitarian state and to democracy, to freedom, to 
openness.”^ ^ In March 2002, however, British Prime 
Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had prominently 
endorsed glasnost in the 1980s, cast the first doubt on 
Gorbachev. She conceded that “the role of Mikhail 
Gorbachev, who failed miserably in his declared objective 
of saving Communism and the Soviet Union, has been 
absurdly misunderstood.”^^ 



Glasnost really means lying, and lying is the first step 
toward stealing and killing. On the memorable day of July 

22, 1978, Romanian president Nicolae Ceau§escu 
whispered in my ear, “I w-want Noel k-k-killed.” 
Ceau§escu stammered both when nervous and when 

excited. “You don’t need to r-report back to me,” he 
added. “I’ll learn about it from the W- Western m-media 
when he croaks.” 

Noel Bernard was the director of Radio Free Europe’s 
Romanian program, and for years he had been blackening 

Ceau§escu’s carefully crafted cult of personality. 

Ceau§escu continued: “And a few days later, blow up 

that whole w-wasp’s n-nest.” The “wasp’s nest” was the 
Munich headquarters of Radio Free Europe. “With a 

briefcase of S-Semtex,” Ceau§escu expertly specified, 

referring to an explosive that had been developed in 
communist Czechoslovakia for use in international 
terrorism. “We’ve g-got to f- finish with all that shit.” 

All through those twenty-seven years I had spent in 
the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I had been living 
with the nightmare that, sooner or later, orders to have 
someone killed would land on my plate. In 1951, when I 
became an intelligence officer in the KGB community, I 
swore to myself that I would avoid involvement in any 
operations that could lead to a loss of life. I may have 
done a lot of reprehensible things during all those years, 
but I had kept that resolution. Up until that moment I had 
been safe, since General Nicolae Doicaru, the longtime 
chief of Romania’s foreign intelligence service, the DIE, 
had been in charge of “wet operations,” as the KGB 
community’s jargon termed the killing and kidnapping of 
political opponents abroad. 

The previous June, however, Ceau§escu had anointed 

me as head of his Presidential House, a new position, and 
there was no way for me to avoid further involvement in 
political assassinations, which had grown into a main 
instrument of foreign policy throughout the Soviet bloc. 

Head of Presidential House was a job essentially like 

chief of staff in the American White House. Ceau§escu 

had invented this post in April 1978, after his triumphant 
visit to Washington — ^where I had accompanied him — but 
within it he had also included the day-to-day handling of 
Romania’s intelligence services. It was like being the 
White House chief of staff, national security adviser, 
director of the CIA and head of the Department for 
Homeland Security all at the same time. 

Since 1972, when I had risen to enter the inner 
sanctum of the Soviet bloc, I had come to realize that 
sooner or later I would have to screw up my courage and 
break with that evil society, which I was sure would 
eventually either quietly collapse or else lead to 
worldwide cataclysm. The physical step, however, proved 
to be much harder than the mental one. 

Privilege can generate cowardice, as it did in my case. 
Communist rulers have always been very generous with 
their spy chiefs — that is, until they tire of them and kill 
them off. It proved not easy for me to renounce my 
exorbitantly luxurious life at the top of Romanian society, 
my Bucharest villa with its swimming pool and sauna, my 
fleet of cars and drivers, my summer house at the Black 
Sea, and my hunting lodges in the Carpathian Mountains. 
“Defector” — that word used by the US government for a 
Soviet bloc official who chose freedom in the West — also 
acted as a chain around my ankles, for the word lay in 
frighteningly close proximity to the word “traitor.” 

The prospect of being involved in political killings 
was the drop that finally burst the dam of my indecision. 
On Sunday, July 23, 1978, 1 flew to Bonn, where I had to 

deliver a message from Ceau§escu to the West German 
chancellor, Helmut Schmidt. Soviet ruler Leonid 
Brezhnev had asked Ceau§escu for help in stealing the 

technology and blueprints for a VTOL (vertical take-off 
and landing) military airplane that had been developed by 
Fokker A.G., West Germany’s main airplane producer. 
The Kremlin believed that using the “independent” 

Ceau§escu to build a cooperative venture with Fokker for 

producing a civilian airplane (Fokker-614) would afford 
the best access for stealing the VTOL technology. The 
German chancellor, however, had shown reluctance to 
approve the venture, rightly fearing that the secret military 
technologies involved might end up in Moscow. 

“Just make sure you plant the conviction in his thick 
German skull that Moscow will never see one iota of 

anything,” Ceau§escu instructed me, after he had finished 

dictating his message to the West German chancellor. 
“Promise him anything he wants.” 

That Sunday, the music suddenly went dead on my 
TAROM flight to Vienna, where I was to pick up an 
Austrian plane for the rest of my trip. A woman’s voice 
cut in fuzzily with an announcement in Romanian and 
German: “Ladies and Gentlemen, our plane will land at 

Schwechat Airport in a few minutes. Captain Georgescu 
and his crew wish you a pleasant sojourn in Vienna and 
hope you will fly TAROM soon again.” 

The door of the plane had barely been cracked open 
when Romania’s ambassador in Vienna, Dumitru 
Aninoiu, whose wife was an undercover DIE officer, 
hopped on board. “Welcome to Vienna, comrade state 
secretary,” he greeted me loudly, using my cover title, as 
he reached out to grab my briefcase. “We’ll have lunch 

As we were leaving for the airport’s VIP salon, I cast 
one final glance over my shoulder at the white BAC 1-11 
plane with the Romanian flag painted on its tail. I knew I 
had flown TAROM for the last time. 

Two days later, a black taxi dropped me off in front of the 
United States Embassy in Bonn. As I stepped out onto the 
sidewalk, I could hear my heart pounding in my ears. My 
mouth felt as if it had been freeze-dried, although the 
palms of my hands were unaccustomedly moist. With a 
few rapid steps, I crossed over to the entrance and went 

The lobby for the general public was small but 
crowded. A statuesque woman squeezed into a chic khaki 
safari suit and draped in several pounds of gold jewelry, 
who was casually leaning against the wall next to the 

door, suddenly stopped talking when I came in. She 
measured me up and down for a very long moment, as did 
her companion, a short, pudgy man in an ill-fitting suit of 
light gray silk. Some of the other people also turned to 
look at me. Even the old-fashioned bureaucrat behind the 
teller-like window, his coat sleeves protected by black 
sleevelets, raised his eyes to peer out at me. In short, the 
whole room seemed to be watching me. 

Of course, I knew that it was normal for a waiting 
room crowd to give every new arrival a careful going- 
over. On that day, though, I could not think about what 
was or was not normal. 

I approached the Marine officer, who stood like a 
statue, feet apart and arms crossed over his chest, barring 
the only door leading to the inside of the embassy, and 
said to him, dropping my voice as low as I could: “I am a 
Soviet bloc two-star intelligence general, and I want to 
defect to the United States.” 

I became a free man on July 27, 1978. Because of my 
extremely high position in the Soviet bloc, only the 
president of the United States could approve my request 
for political asylum. Thus, Pete, the CIA officer I talked 
to at the US embassy, scheduled another meeting for 10 
p.m. three days later at the Dom-Hotel in Cologne, to give 
me the answer. Those were three very long days. 

When I arrived at the Dom-Hotel that fateful 
Wednesday night, the first thing I did was look around for 

the men’s room. As I opened the door, I saw Pete inside. 
My biochemistry was, evidently, not unique. 

Pete seemed embarrassed for only a second. Then he 
took an envelope from his breast pocket and gave it to me. 
It contained a cable signed by Adm. Stansfield Turner, the 
director of Central Intelligence, stating that President 
Jimmy Carter was granting me political asylum, security 
protection, and help for starting a new life in America. It 
also said that a CIA airplane sent from Washington was 
waiting at the Rhein-Main Air Base to pick me up. 

Reading that cable over and over again gave me an 
enormous feeling of relief. Not in my wildest dreams, 
though, had I ever imagined that I would become a free 
man in a restroom. 

It was past midnight when our four-car motorcade 
came roaring up to the gate at the US Rhein-Main Air 
Base. I was pleasantly surprised to find a pile of clothes 
waiting for me on the plane, as all I had with me was the 
shirt and pants I was wearing. 

Throughout all those years of torment in Romania, the 
only things of which I had been certain of were that I 
would not die under communism and that no matter how 
high I might have been shoved up the communist ladder, I 
would start my new life in America without any 
encumbrances from my past. That was why, when I set 
out from my room at the Intercontinental Hotel in 
Cologne to board the CIA plane, the only things I took 

with me were my passport; my personal notes; a camera 
containing a couple of snapshots of my daughter, Dana; 
and a wristwatch with the signature of King Hussein of 
Jordan on its dial, which I had just gotten from the king 
for — as he put it — saving his life from an assassination 
attempt organized by PLO leader Yasser Arafat. 

After we had been served dinner, Pete called it a day. 
“Let’s catch a few hours of sleep,” he suggested, guiding 
me to the airplane’s bedroom. Pete took a pair of pajamas 
and a travel kit out of his garment bag. After a couple of 
moments, he quietly put them back and, still dressed, 
scrunched up under the blanket covering his bed. Pete’s 
weariness may have been less overwhelming than his 
embarrassment when he realized that I had neither 
pajamas nor toothbrush. A few minutes later, Pete was 
sawing wood. 

Of course, I was also exhausted and could hardly 
believe everything was over. That whole Thursday, I had 
tried to look as if I had been indeed getting ready for a 
routine trip back to Bucharest, not for the voyage of a 
lifetime. I had spent the morning in the acoustically 
protected “bubble” at the Romanian Embassy, in the 
company of the DIE chief of station. General Stefan 
Constantin. At noon, I had again met Chancellery 
Minister Hans- Jurgen Wischnewski at the 
Bundeskanzleramt in Bonn to get Chancellor Schmidt’s 

answer to Ceau§escu’s message. From the twinkle in his 

eye and his warm handshake, I understood he must have 
known about my decision, and that cheered me up 
enormously — I had tremendous confidence in that bulldog 
of a man. 

Afterward I had flown to Bremen, where I held a 
meeting with Fokker representatives, and in the evening I 
had been back in Cologne to meet with Frederick W. 
Smith, founder and chairman of the American shipping 
company Federal Express, who wanted to buy one 
hundred commercial Fokker-614 planes that would be 
produced in Romania in cooperation with Fokker. Then I 
had attended the official dinner given for me by the 
Romanian ambassador. Ion Morega, in the salons of the 
embassy, where I had even told a few jokes. 

Now I, too, collapsed into bed. Not that I hoped to 
close my eyes. God knows, that night I was more worked 
up than words could tell. My thoughts turned back to 
what must soon be going on in Bucharest. I remembered 
what had occurred a couple of months earlier, when I had 

reported to Ceau§escu that General Nicolae Militaru, the 

commander of the Bucharest Military Garrison, was at 
that moment in the process of being recruited by Soviet 

intelligence. Hearing that, Ceau§escu ripped off his shirt. 

He closeted himself with his wife at their summer 
residence in Neptun, surrounded the place with a cordon 
of armored vehicles and security troops, and then vented 
his rage on his minister of interior and me. 

My own positions in the Romanian government were 
infinitely higher than General Militam’s, and I suddenly 
felt a mischievous smile creeping onto my lips. Thank 
God, I thought. At least I won’t be there having to cope 

with Ceau§escu’s hysterics again. 

It was a glorious, sunny day outside when the CIA plane 
landed at the presidential airport inside Andrews Air 
Force Base near Washington, DC, and that only 
magnified the fireworks popping off inside of me. For 
many, many years I had learned to hide my personal 
feelings, for that was the way of life in a society where the 
government had its informants everywhere and where 
microphones covered you everyplace you went. But on 
that unforgettable day, I had an overwhelming desire to 
dance around in a jig all by myself. 

I was a free man! I knew it would not be easy to start 
my life over from scratch with only the clothes on my 
back, but I was eager to try my hand at it. I was a well- 
educated engineer and America was, after all, the land of 
opportunity, wasn’t it? 

To the right of our plane were a Boeing 707 and a 727 
painted with the American flag and presidential seal, and 
that also contributed to my feeling of having arrived in a 
familiar place. Those Boeings were old friends of mine. I 
had been involved in the visits of Presidents Nixon and 

Ford to Romania, and I had traveled on an Air Force One 

provided by President Carter to Ceau§escu to tour the 

United States. “Welcome home,” read a large banner 
behind them intended for President Carter, but it gave me 
the feeling that I, too, had come home. 

A string of cars and a bunch of people were waiting 
for me. One man was standing in front of the red carpet. 
“Welcome to the United States, General,” he said, shaking 
my hand. “You are a free man!” 

Many years after that memorable day, I became 
friends with a Holocaust survivor whose eyes always 
misted up whenever he told about how one of the 
American soldiers who liberated his concentration camp 
had said to him: “You’re a free man!” So do my eyes, 
whenever I remember those solemn words. 

My first dinner as a free man, a candlelight feast that 
ended long after midnight, remains vivid in my memory, 
down to the last detail. I was feted as the only head of a 
Soviet bloc espionage service who had ever asked for 
political asylum. When I finally took myself upstairs, the 
new day was beginning to break. I was overwhelmed. The 
joy of finally becoming part of this magnanimous land of 
liberty, where nothing was impossible, was surpassed 
only by the joy of simply being alive. I was exactly three 
months short of the round age of fifty on that 
unforgettable day of July 28, 1978, and I more than ever 
regretted that I had kept postponing the fateful step for so 

many years. 

When I finally reached my bedroom, I carefully 
locked the door from inside. Then I took a little stone out 
of my pocket and fervently kissed it. It was one I had 
picked up off the ground at Andrews. In 1973 I had 
started the habit of secretly kissing the American soil 
every time I set foot in the United States. I would always 
find an unobtrusive way to pick up a small stone from 
someplace around the airport and to bury it inside my 
pocket until I could bring it out and devoutly give it a kiss 
later that night, in the darkness and surety of my room. 

I kissed my little stone once more, then opened a 
window and threw it outside, back where it belonged. 
Falling to my knees, I prayed out loud for the first time in 
more than a quarter century. It took me a while, as it was 
not easy for me to find the right words to express my 
great joy and thanks to the good Lord. Forgiveness for my 
past, freedom for my daughter and strength for my new 
life were all I asked for at the end. 

It was already day when I finished writing a letter to 
my beloved daughter, Dana. Here is the passage in which 
I explained why I had left her an orphan: 

. . . For twenty years I had the misfortune of being involved 
in stealing from the West its teehnologieal data, whieh, 
together with demoeraey and freedom, are its greatest 
souree of respeet and pride. I was involved in stealing, but I 
always maneuvered things so as not to be involved in 

assassinations ... In 1978 I got the order to organize the 
killing of Noel Bernard, the direetor of Radio Free 

Europe’s Romanian program who had infuriated Ceau§eseu 
with his eommentaries. It was late July when I got this 
order and when I ultimately had to deeide between being a 
good father and being a politieal eriminal. Knowing you, 

Dana, I was firmly eonvineed that you would prefer no 
father to one who was an assassin. 

That letter was repeatedly broadcast by Radio Free 
Europe and published in Le Monde. Unfortunately, Noel 

Bernard was indeed killed by Ceau§escu’s political police, 

the Securitate, in 1981. During that same year, a twenty- 
pound plastic bomb exploded at the headquarters of Radio 
Free Europe in Munich. The bomb was planted by 
“Carlos the Jackal” (Ilich Ramirez Sanchez), who, 
according to Securitate documents recently released, had 
been supplied by the Romanians with four hundred 
pounds of plastic explosive, seven submachine guns and 
$1 million to assassinate me in the United States and to 
blow up Radio Free Europe headquarters.^ Fortunately, 
Carlos was not able to find me. Eight employees at RFE 
headquarters in Munich were, however, badly injured by 
the explosion. Five Romanian diplomats assigned to West 
Germany were expelled for their involvement in that 
bloody operation.^ 



It has been many years since I escaped from that evil 
society known as the Soviet empire and came to the 
United States, the land of my youthful dreams. Millions 
around the world have been ready to pay any price to 
become citizens of this unique country. I am one of the 
lucky few who succeeded. Even today it is still difficult 
for me to find adequate words to express my gratitude to 
the US government for magnanimously granting me 
political asylum, despite my position at the top of the 
Soviet bloc intelligence community. 

In 1981, 1 married a true American patriot, superb 
writer, and excellent linguist, who had also spent many 

years working against Soviet intelligence. Mary Lou 
helped me become a true American. She has spent the 
best years of her life assisting me to master English and to 
survive in spite of two death sentences hanging over my 
head and multimillion-dollar bounties on my scalp. She 
has also helped me, day after day, to build a new life 
under the new protective identity provided by the CIA, 
one that has nothing to do with Romania. It was not easy 
for Mary Lou, as the fellow inhabiting this new skin 
didn’t have any real past to talk about, or any old friends 
from that past to count on. But she managed marvelously. 
We joined a yacht club, traveled around the world, made 
new friends, and outwitted several assassination teams. 

Because the FBI learned that Muammar Gaddafi’s 
espionage service had succeeded in persuading two 
former CIA contract employees (Frank Terpil and Edwin 
Wilson, who had meanwhile escaped arrest by defecting 
to Libya) to provide internal CIA information about my 
whereabouts in exchange for $ I million, the CIA gave me 
a brand-new identity. Once again, we started our lives 
from scratch. New name, new past, new town, new home, 
new clubs, new friends. And we managed again. 

My first book. Red Horizons, was Mary Lou’s idea. 
She helped me to look at my past through American eyes, 
and she put my manuscript into good English. In 1987, 
Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and the late and 
lamented Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) handed the first 
published copy of Red Horizons to President Reagan, who 

reportedly would come to call it “my bible for dealing 
with dictators.” A Romanian translation of the book 
printed in the United States was smuggled into Romania, 
and a Mao- style pocket edition was illegally printed in 
Hungary. In 1988, Red Horizons was serialized on Radio 
Free Europe. 

In 1989, 1 was informed by Deputy Secretary of State 
Lawrence Eagle-burger that my daughter had found a way 
to request political asylum in the United States. Soon after 
that. Congressmen Dick Cheney and Frank Wolf sent a 

letter to Ceau§escu, cosigned by some three hundred other 
members of the US Congress, asking him to allow her 
departure. Ceau§escu refused. To be on the safe side, his 

Securitate launched the rumor that I had been found dead 
in a New York subway station. 

Frustrated by the Securitate'^ disinformation and by 
the hermetical isolation of my daughter in Romania, 
Congressman Wolf flew to Bucharest together with 
Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) to contact my 
daughter, who had been kept under virtual house arrest for 
ten years. They wanted to assure Dana that I was still 
alive, contrary to the disinformation launched by 

Ceau§escu. Both congressmen barely escaped from an 

attempt by a Romanian secret police car to run them 
down. Here is how Congressman Smith described it: 

A police car filled with four burly policemen, or Securitate 

members, was following us. And on one oeeasion, just as I 
turned around, the ear’s headlights were switehed off. I 
thought, ‘They’re going to run us down.’ And all of a 
sudden the ear started raeing toward us. I pushed Frank up 
against the wall, and the ear went up on the sidewalk, just a 
few feet from us, and then roared down the street. We were 
all pushed up against the wall, and if we hadn’t been aware, 

we would have been hit from behind. ^ 

On March 13, 1989, a picture in Time magazine 
showed Red Horizons on the desk of President George 
Herbert Walker Bush.^ 

July 28, 1989, was the most important benchmark of my 
new life. On that day I became an American citizen. Also 
on that day, I was credited by the CIA as the only person 
in the Western world who had single-handedly 
demolished an entire enemy espionage service — the one I 
had managed. And I was given the following letter, 
signed by the CIA Director for Operations, a letter that 
became the most precious present I had ever received in 
my whole life: 

Dear Lt. Gen. Ion Paeepa, 

You have made an important and unique eontribution to 
the United States of whieh you ean justly be proud. 
Therefore, it gives me great pleasure, on this momentous 
and solemn oeeasion, to wish you happiness and fulfillment 

in this country as a US citizen.”^ 

On November 9, 1989, as I sat in front of the television 
set watching the Berlin Wall being tom down, my eyes 
welled up with tears. I was incredibly proud to be a 
citizen of the United States. The whole world was 
expressing its gratitude to this great country for its forty- 
five years of successful Cold War against Marxism and 
the Soviet empire. 

During the night of December 21, 1989, 1 received a 
phone call from the head of the State Department’s team 
monitoring the events in Romania. “They took your 
daughter. General.” Dana was indeed plucked from her 
house in Bucharest and driven to the Bulgarian border, 
together with her husband and her in-laws. They were 
given to understand that they would be executed there, 
and that their bodies would be left along the border to 
indicate that they had been illegally trying to flee 
Romania. Fortunately, just before the group reached the 
border, they heard Radio Bucharest announcing that 

Ceau§escu had fled, and that his office was now in the 
hands of the people. 

The two dozen Securitate officers escorting Dana 
dropped everything and ran off like rats deserting a 
sinking ship, leaving behind their cars, uniforms, and 
even weapons. When Dana got back to Bucharest, she 
found that the Securitate guard car that for eleven years 

had been stationed in front of her house had also been 
abandoned. Together with a diplomat at the United States 
Embassy in Bucharest, she searched the car and found not 
only more abandoned uniforms and weapons, but even 
operational files on her case. Included in the file were 
photographs of people who were under no circumstances 
to be allowed to enter their house — Congressman Wolf 
was among them. 

On Christmas Day 1989, Romanian tyrant Nicolae 

Ceau§escu was executed at the end of a trial in which the 

accusations came almost word-for-word out of Red 
Horizons. (A second edition, published the following 

March, contains the transcript of Ceau§escu’s trial, which 

clearly was based entirely on facts found in Red 
Horizons.) On January 1, 1990, the new Romanian 

newspaper Adevdrul (“The Truth”), which on that day had 
replaced the communist Scinteia (“The Spark”), began 
serializing Red Horizons. In its lead article, Adevdrul 

explained that the book’s serialization by Radio Free 
Europe had “played an incontestable role” in 

overthrowing Ceau§escu. According to a program on 

Radio Romania International, “the streets of Romania’s 
towns were empty” during the Radio Free Europe 
serialization of my book."^ 

The bullets were still flying over Bucharest when 

Congressman Wolf landed there again, this time to free 
my daughter. On January 6, 1999, the congressman 
landed in Washington with my daughter and her husband, 
who became the first Romanians to escape from 

Ceau§escu’s hell and reach the United States. Their 

arrival was broadcast on forty- four US and international 
TV stations. A few weeks later, Dana’s husband, a 
sculptor, finished a bust of Congressman Wolf and 
presented it to him. The second chapter of the 
congressman’s latest book. Prisoner of Conscience, which 
is dedicated to Red Horizons and Dana’s rescue from 
Romania, ends with the story of that statue: 

The bust now sits in my family room at home. My younger 
grandehildren yell, “Pop Pop” whenever they see it, and 
rub the nose. “It was eertainly not the most faithful portrait 
of the eongressman,” General Paeepa notes, “but for Dana 

and her husband it was the symbol of their freedom.”^ 

Red Horizons was subsequently republished in twenty- 
seven countries, and in 2010 the Washington Post 
recommended it be included on the list of books that 
should be read in schools, next to Whittaker Chambers’s 

So I kept writing. 

In 2010, my book Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey 
Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination 
was displayed at the annual meeting of the Organization 

of American Historians in Washington, DC, and an 
academic review called it a “superb new paradigmatic 
work on the death of President Kennedy” and a “must 
read” for “the most casual reader,” for the “serious 
student preparing his or her own magnum opus,” and for 
“everyone interested in the assassination of President 

Also during 2010, 1 finished another manuscript, 
dealing with disinformation and glasnost. My literary 
agent, who was also running for US Congress as a 
Republican, fell in love with it, but had problems 
interesting a major publisher in it. 

By then I was already eighty-two and I thought it was 
time for me to hang up my war on disinformation and 
glasnost on a nail and spend the rest of my days just 
enjoying my new, marvelous life together with my 
beloved Mary Lou. 

Alas, I couldn’t. 

A good friend, Kathryn Jean Lopez, at that time editor 
of National Review Online, forwarded me an e-mail from 
Professor Ronald Rychlak, who wanted to discuss with 
me the details of an article, “Moscow’s Assault on the 
Vatican,” that I had published in the NRO. That article 
dealt with a KGB disinformation operation aimed at 
changing Pius XII’s strongly anti-Nazi past and, absurdly, 
alleging that he was in fact “Hitler’s Pope.” Professor 
Rychlak, one of the world’s top experts on Pius XII, 

wanted me to help him write a chapter dealing with this 
KGB framing of Pius XII, for inclusion in a new edition 
of his book Hitler, the War, and the Pope, in which he 
had thoroughly documented that Pius XII had saved half 
million Jews from the Nazis. I agreed. The new edition 
was successfully published. 

Soon after that, Ron suggested we cowrite a whole 
book about the framing of Pius XII. We ended up 
building a book on Soviet disinformation, in which the 
framing of Pius is one of its major examples. 

Disinformation has caused worldwide damage to the 
reputation of the United States, and now it is putting 
down roots in this country itself. To fight this invisible 
weapon, we must first recognize it for what it is and 
decode its hidden mission, since it is usually clothed in 
innocuous civilian dress — as were the terrorists who 
killed three thousand Americans on September 11, 2001. 
That is the purpose of this book. 



Most politicians, people in the academic world, and the 
media believe that disinformation is an obsolete Cold War 
phenomenon. As late as 1986, however, the word 
“disinformation” was not listed among the three hundred 
thousand entries of Webster 's New World Thesaurus, or 
even in the twenty-seven volumes of the New 
Encyclopedia Britannica. It is widely — and erroneously — 
believed that the word is simply a foreign synonym for 
misinformation. Even the Microsoft Word 2010 software 
used to type the draft of this book underlined the word 
disinforming and suggested replacing it with 

In reality, disinformation is as different from 
misinformation as night is from day. Misinformation is an 
official government tool and recognizable as such. 
Disinformation (i.e., dezinformatsiya) is a secret 
intelligence tool, intended to bestow a Western, 
nongovernment cachet on government lies. Let us assume 
that the FSB (the new KGB) fabricated some documents 
supposedly proving that American military forces were 
under specific orders to target Islamic houses of worship 
in their bombing raids over Libya in 201 1. If a report on 
those documents were published in an official Russian 
news outlet, that would be misinformation, and people in 
the West might rightly take it with a grain of salt and 
simply shrug it off as routine Moscow propaganda. If, on 
the other hand, that same material were made public in the 
Western media and attributed to some Western 
organization, that would be disinformation, and the 
story’s credibility would be substantially greater. 

In April 2003, the Western media were inundated with 
hundreds of horror stories about the looting of the 
National Museum in Baghdad. Television stations around 
the world showed the weeping deputy director of the 
museum blaming the Americans for allowing the 
destruction of “170,000 items of antiquity dating back 
thousands of years.” That was a piece of disinformation. 
Eventually it was reliably reported that museum 
employees had hidden the supposedly looted treasures in 
a safe place long before the Iraq War started, and at the 

end of hostilities they were safe, in American protective 
custody. Museum officials later listed only twenty- five 
artifacts as definitely missing.^ But the damage was done. 
Countless people around the world still talk about the 
devastating images of empty display cases repeatedly 
shown on their television screens, accompanied by 
accusations that the Americans had allowed that to 

In the course of history, many countries during wartime 
have used various techniques to deceive the enemy about 
their real intentions. At one extreme is the huge, hollow 
wooden horse constructed by the Greeks in the second 
millennium BC to gain entrance into the impregnable city 
of Troy. At the other extreme is the complicated and 
masterful operation put together by British intelligence in 
1944 to make the Germans believe that the Allied forces 
would invade France around Calais rather than on the 
actually intended beaches of Normandy. Russia became 
the first major power to make deception a permanent 
national policy, which eventually distorted every facet of 
Russian tsarist and communist society. 

According to the highly classified training manuals on 
disinformation that codified my previous existence, the 
“science” of disinformation (and it was specifically and 
proudly termed a science) was bom in Russia, it was 

deeply rooted in the Russian soil and in that country’s 
history, and there it would remain forever. The manuals 
taught that, bom in eighteenth century Russia, 
disinformation was the fruit of the passionate love affair 
between Catherine the Great and Prince Grigory 
Potemkin, her principal political and military adviser. In 
1787, Potemkin, by then the governor general of the New 
Russia (today’s Ukraine), took the empress on a tour of 
the Crimea, which he had been instmmental in annexing 
from the Turks four years earlier. To impress her, 
Potemkin had arranged for sham villages to be erected 
along the route the empress would take. One of those 
empty-fa9ade villages, erected at the mouth of the small 
river Bug, went so far as to welcome the empress with a 
triumphal arch inscribed: “This is the way to 

It is not an accident that disinformation was bom in 
Russia. In the eighteenth century, the French Marquis de 
Custine remarked that in fact “everything is deception in 
Russia, and the gracious hospitality of the Czar, gathering 
together in his palace his serfs and the serfs of his 
courtiers, is only one more mockery.”^ Custine also noted 
— in language that cannot be improved upon even today 
— that “Russian despotism not only counts ideas and 
sentiments for nothing but remakes facts; it wages war on 
evidence and triumphs in the battle.”^ General Walter 
Bedell Smith, a former United States ambassador to 

Moscow, who wrote an introduction to the 1951 English 
translation of the marquis’s diary, stated that Custine’s 
political analysis was “so penetrating and timeless that it 
could be called the best work so far produced about the 
Soviet Union. This book is perhaps the most insightful 
analysis of all of twentieth-century Russia. 

There is a proverb saying that lies have short legs; that 
may be true elsewhere, but in post-tsarist Russia 
disinformation became a national policy that played a far 
greater role in shaping that country’s past and present 
than even Potemkin could ever have foreseen. 

World War I and the new era it brought about swept 
away five emperors, eight kings and eighteen dynasties,^ 
but no country was more changed than Russia. When the 
Great War ended, Russia looked like a mobile home 
community hit by a hurricane. The new communist rulers 
assassinated the tsar, his family and his aristocracy, 
abolished the country’s governing institutions, 
demolished her millennial religion, seized the land owned 
by wealthy Russians, confiscated the country’s banks and 
industrial enterprises and killed off most of their owners. 
Russia’s history, traditions, social customs, ethical values, 
and everything else that had ever meant something before 
the October Revolution of 1917 were thrown upside down 
and inside out — even if only for the sake of change. 

Nevertheless, the new communist rulers religiously 
preserved the “science of disinformation f realizing that 

this historic Russian tool fit their needs like a glove. 
Changing minds is in fact what communism is all about. 

It is also a quintessence of Russia, going all the way back 
to the Potemkin villages erected to allege rural prosperity. 
No wonder communism, Russia and disinformation were 
such a good fit. 

During the Cold War, more people in the Soviet bloc 
worked for the disinformation machinery than for the 
Soviet army and defense industry put together. The bloc’s 
intelligence community alone had well over one million 
officers and several million informants around the world. 
All were involved in deceiving the West — and their own 
people — or in supporting this effort. To them should be 
added the vast number of people working for the 
international disinformation organizations that the KGB 
secretly created. These organizations were headquartered 
outside the Soviet Union, pretended to be independent 
international entities, and published their own newspapers 
in French or English. Some of those international 
“Potemkin villages” in which I was personally involved 
include: the World Peace Council (with branches in 1 12 
countries); the World Federation of Trade Unions (with 
branches in 90 countries); the Women’s International 
Democratic Federation (with branches in 129 countries); 
the International Union of Students (with branches in 152 

countries); and the World Federation of Democratic 
Youth (with branches in 210 countries). 

It is a typically Russian tactic not to attack a threat 
head-on, and disinformation proved a deliciously indirect 
way of confounding the Kremlin’s enemies. The first 
international “Potemkin village” was founded in 1949 and 
given the respectable name of World Peace Council 
(WPC), so that it would not look Russian. Its main task 
was to claim authorship for Soviet-concocted materials 
“documenting” that the United States was a war- 
mongering, Zionist country financed by Jewish money 
and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion.” 
The goal was to create the fear that the United States 
would ignite a new war in order to transform the rest of 
the world into a Jewish fiefdom. 

There was a major condition for disinformation to 
succeed, and that was that a story should always be built 
around a “kernel of truth” that would lend credibility. 

Over my twenty-seven years in the Soviet bloc 
intelligence community, I was privy to many Cold War 
disinformation operations that eventually lost steam but 
were never entirely compromised, because of that kernel 
of truth. The “kernel of truth” for the World Peace 
Council was that it was headquartered in Paris and chaired 
by the French Nobel Prize winner Frederic Joliot-Curie, a 
leftist persuaded by Stalin to lend his name to this 
international Potemkin village. 

To be on the safe side, Stalin decided to make 
disinformation look as if it also were historically French. 
In the early 1950s, my DIE (Romania’s foreign 
intelligence, or espionage, service) was instructed by its 
Soviet counterpart to launch the rumor that the word 
disinformation was derived from the French — in other 
words, to represent this traditionally Russian ruse as a 
French capitalist tool targeted against the peace-loving 
peoples of the Soviet bloc. I do not recall the exact 
definition received from Moscow, but it was similar to the 
one that can be found in the 1952 edition of the Great 
Soviet Encyclopedia: 

DEZINFORMATSIYA (from des (q.v.) and French 
information). Dissemination (in the press, on the radio, etc.) 
of false reports intended to mislead public opinion. The 
capitalist press and radio make wide use of 
dezinformatsiya, in order to fool the people, entangle them 
in lies, and depict the new war being prepared by the 
Anglo-American imperialist bloc as a defensive weapon, 
but depict the peaceful politics of the USSR, countries of 
the people’s democracy and other peace-loving countries as 
allegedly aggressive. A special role in disseminations of 
this sort of provocative reports, of every kind of falsehoods, 
etc., belongs to the American capitalist press, radio and 
various publication agencies, furnishing false information 
to the press and to other propaganda organizations. The 
leading circles of the USA, Great Britain, France and other 
imperialist governments often resort to dezinformatsiya in 
matters of international relations; numerous examples of 

this kind of dezinformatsiya are found in the well-known 
Sovinformburo doeument “Falsifiers of History (Historieal 
report)” (1948). The Anglo-Ameriean imperialists make 
wide use of dezinformatsiya in order to eoneeal the 
predatory nature of the war unleashed by them in Korea in 

June 1950.^ 

Today most people believe that disinformation does 
indeed derive from some French word. But the official 
French dictionary, the Larousse, did not mention any such 
word as des information in 1952, or even in its 1978 

Back in those early postwar days, the French 
government saw through Moscow’s ruse. In 1954 it 
rejected any French paternity for the word disinformation, 
accused the World Peace Council of being a KGB front, 
and kicked it out of France. One of the Soviets’ most 
trusted influence agents of that period, French philosopher 
Jean-Paul Sartre, tried to persuade the French government 
to rescind its decision. He publicly vilified the United 
States as a racist country suffering from political rabies.^ 

It did not help. Moscow was forced to move the World 
Peace Council headquarters temporarily to Soviet- 
occupied Prague and later to the “neutral” Helsinki.^ 

(At the top of the KGB community it was known that 
Jean-Paul Sartre was used as an influence agent. The 
KGB archives are still sealed, but facts about Sartre’s 
cooperation with the KGB have started coming to light. 

Here is one: In 1967, French terrorist Regis Debray 
published his first book, Revolution in the Revolution, a 
primer for communist guerrilla insurrection that praised 
communist terrorist Che Guevara to the skies. Debray 
dedicated his life to exporting Cuban-style communism to 
South America, but a few months after he published his 
book, a Bolivian Special Forces unit trained by the US 
captured him in Bolivia, together with the whole guerrilla 
band led by Che Guevara. Che was sentenced to death 
and executed for terrorism and mass murder. Debray was 
sentenced to thirty years in jail, but was released after 
three years following the insistent interventions of Sartre. 
In the 1980s, Debray served as adviser for Latin America 
to French president Fran 9 ois Mitterrand. After that. 
Debray committed his life to spreading hatred against the 
United States. In February 2003, he published “The 
French Lesson” in the New York Times, which described 
Debray as “a former adviser to President Fran 9 ois 
Mitterrand,” but omitted to mention that he had spent 
years in jail for terrorism and that he was freed because 
Sartre vouched for him. Debray’s article contains every 
imaginable anti-American cliche.^ Here is one more 
attestation to Sartre’s connection with the KGB: On June 
15, 1972, the West German police captured one of 
Sartre’s favorite pupils, German terrorist Ulrike Meinhof, 
who was financed by the KGB. Soon after that, she sent a 
letter to her ideological master, Sartre, asking him for 
moral support. Sartre complied. When he went to the 

Stammheim prison in West Germany to encourage her, 
Sartre was chauffeured by German terrorist Hans-Joachim 
Klein, a KGB agent and Carlos the Jackal’s deputy for the 
1975 OPEC terrorist attack in Vienna. 

It is no wonder that the World Peace Council was 
expelled from France. Behind its supposedly French 
facade, it was as purely Soviet as could be. Its daily 
business was conducted by a Soviet-style Secretariat, 
whose twenty-one members were undercover foreign 
intelligence officers from nine Soviet bloc countries 
(USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, 
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Albania, and Cuba). The 
World Peace Council also had twenty-three Soviet-style 
vice presidents, all communists, who were divided as 
follows: four represented communist countries (USSR, 
Poland, East Germany, and Romania); three represented 
communist governments loyal to Moscow (Cuba, North 
Vietnam, and Angola); two represented the Palestine 
Liberation Organization (PLO) and the African National 
Congress (ANC), both anti-American terrorist 
organizations sponsored by Moscow; four represented 
nonruling communist parties (United States, France, Italy, 
Argentina); and ten represented national-level WPC 
affiliates in the Soviet bloc and other Soviet puppet 
countries. Most of the WPC’s permanent employees were 
undercover Soviet bloc intelligence officers specializing 
in “peace operations,” whose task was to shape the new 

Western peace movements into “fifth columns” for the 
“socialist camp.” The World Peace Council had Moscow- 
financed branches in 1 12 countries. It also put out two 
publications in French, Nouvelles perspectives and 
Courier de la Paix, which were managed by KGB — and 
DIE — undercover officers and controlled by the Soviet — 
and Romanian — disinformation service. 

Even the money for the WPC budget came from 
Moscow, delivered by Soviet intelligence officers in the 
form of laundered American dollars to hide its Soviet 
origin. (In 1989, when the Soviet Union was on the verge 
of collapse, the WPC publicly admitted that 90 percent of 
its money came from the KGB.^^) 

Over the years, Moscow created numerous 
international Potemkin villages in every imaginable 
element of Western Europe. Today, few Europeans are 
willing to admit they were ever influenced by these efforts 
to demonize the United States as a Zionist country and 
drive a wedge between Jews and Christians. By the mid 
1950s, however, some 30 million people in Western 
Europe were voting the anti-American Communist ticket 
(35 percent of the population in Italy and 20-25 percent in 
France, Portugal, and Greece). That was a remarkable 
success for the Soviet bloc disinformation, considering 
that the United States had liberated Western Europe from 
Nazi occupation and rebuilt its war-decimated economies. 

After the Soviet Union collapsed, most of the 

international “Potemkin villages” built by the Kremlin 
survived and continued carrying out the same anti- 
American messages as during their heyday. The World 
Peace Council moved from Helsinki to Athens, Greece, 
but it was still headed by its KGB-selected chairman 
Romesh Chandra, an Indian communist who in the 1970s 
required all WPC national branches to initiate 
demonstrations against the American war in Vietnam. 
After 1991, when the United States remained the only 
superpower, Chandra focused his WPC on “waging a 
struggle against the New World Order.”^^ According to 
its current charter, the WPC has now “broadened into a 
worldwide mass movement” whose task is to support 
“those people and liberation movements” fighting 
“against imperialism.”^^ That “imperialism,” of course, 
really means the United States. 

On December 14, 2002, Chandra convened a meeting 
of his Soviet-style Executive Committee, which 
thereupon strongly “condemned the extremely dangerous 
escalation of US aggressiveness on the global level.” An 
international appeal in typically execrable Soviet-style 
language issued by the Soviet-style WPC Secretariat on 
the same day called upon “the people of the world” to 
organize “unprecedented mobilizations” against 
“American imperialism.” 

The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the 
second largest of KGB “Potemkin villages,” also survived 

the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is still headquartered 
in Prague, and it still uses anti-American Cold War 
rhetoric. During its 14^^ Congress (New Delhi, March 25- 
28, 2000), for instance, it demanded “the immediate 
lifting [of the American] economic blockade against 
Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya.”^"^ 

The Women’s International Democratic Federation 
(WIDF) adopted a new charter during the United Nations’ 
Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing, 
demanding in typical Cold War oratory that “the women 
of the world” fight “the globalization” of the “so-called 
‘market economies,”’ which are “a root cause of the 
increasing feminization of poverty everywhere.”^ ^ On 
March 8, 2000, the WIDF organized a “World March of 
Women” in Calcutta to celebrate the Soviet-established 
International Women’s Day.^^ 

The International Union of Students (lUOS), 
headquartered in Prague, now has 152 national unions of 
students from 114 countries. It continues to propagate 
hatred for the United States. An international appeal 
issued during the 2001 “International Students’ Day” 
condemned the United States’ “vengeful attacks on 
Afghanistan that have set back the struggle for stability in 
the Middle East and served to fuel further racism and 
intolerance around the world.” 

While these groups hide their true ties to Moscow, 
they continually advance ideas and programs that support 

the Kremlin’s causes. They are perfect outlets for 
continuing disinformation. 



There is a widespread belief that the worst damage from 
Soviet/Russian intelligence operations against the West 
has been the theft of highly classified secrets, such as the 
technology for the atom bomb. Not so. The absolutely 
worst — and often irreparable — damage done to the Free 
World has been caused by the Kremlin’s disinformation 
operations designed to change the past. The 
transformation of Stalin from the political killer who 
slaughtered more than 20 million innocent people in the 
Soviet Union alone into the political god over one-third of 
the world generated not only forty years of Cold War, but 
also the greatest political hoax perpetrated in history: 
international respect for Marxism and admiration for 
murderous communist leaders. 

In KGB jargon, changing people’s pasts was called 
“framing,” and it was a highly classified disinformation 
speciality. Because of those KGB framings, there are few 
things more difficult for Russian and Western historians 
today than to predict Russia’s past. 

In January 1934, the XVII Soviet Communist Party 
Congress was hailed as the “Congress of the Victorious.” 
Who would have predicted that 98 out of the 139 
members of the Central Committee of the Communist 
Party elected at that Congress would later be framed as 
“enemies of the people” and put to death by the same 
regime that had praised them? In fact, 1,108 out of the 
1,966 delegates to this Congress were framed as “counter- 
revolutionaries,” and 848 of them were executed. ^ 

Over the following years, millions of other innocent 
Soviet citizens were framed as traitors and killed, and 
millions of other Russians took to the streets to condemn 
those “traitors” and to demand their scalps.^ After World 
War II, the Kremlin’s black art of framing was exported 
to the newly created communist countries in Eastern 

Contrary to popular belief, the countries of Eastern 
Europe did not become proletarian dictatorships because 
of revolutions carried out by the indigenous communist 
parties — in 1945, Romania’s Communist Party had fewer 
than fifteen hundred members. The Sovietization of 
Eastern Europe was accomplished by the Kremlin through 

subversive framing operations that were later stamped 
with an outwardly political cachet. The leaders of East 
European democratic parties were not politically purged; 
they were systematically shot or imprisoned after being 
framed as Nazi war criminals. That gave the Kremlin 
reason to stage “popular” demonstrations demanding 
those parties’ abolition. The leading East European 
figures in industry and agriculture were framed as 
saboteurs and shot or jailed, so as to provide the local 
communists with pretexts to nationalize the economy and 
collectivize agriculture. It was a long and bloody framing 
process that lasted well over ten years. 

The Kremlin’s framings can be negative, for 
demotion, or positive, for promotion; either way, they can 
literally affect the course of world history. Admirable 
Westerners have been slandered or “framed” as criminals, 
and criminally unworthy characters in the Soviet/Russian 
sphere of influence have been portrayed or “framed” as 

During the Stalin era, more than 7 million 
“uncooperative” Soviet citizens were marked for 
demotion, framed as Zionist spies or Nazi collaborators, 
and executed or sent to gulags. The useful ones were 
framed positively, even glorified. All the initial leaders of 
the East European countries (Walter Ulbricht in Germany, 
Klement Gottwald in Czechoslovakia, Georgi Dimitroff in 
Bulgaria, Matyas Rakosi in Hungary, and Gheorghe 
Gheorghiu-Dej in Romania) were absolute nobodies who 

swore loyalty to the Kremlin’s religion, Marxism- 
Leninism- Stalinism, and they were framed into national 
heroes by the Soviet dezinformatsiya machinery. 

Once installed on their countries’ thrones, those empty 
suits adopted the Kremlin’s framing practice as their own. 
On August 23, 1944, Romania’s heroic King Michael led 
an audacious coup d’etat that overthrew the pro-Nazi 
government, ending the country’s alliance with Germany. 
He then had Romania join forces with the Allies against 
Hitler. In 1945 the king was decorated by President Harry 
Truman, whose decoration decree stated that King 
Michael had “single-handedly pulled Romania out of the 
war” although he “had no control over the country which 
was allied with the German aggressor.”^ The king’s action 
had been so courageous and unique that he had become 
the only other foreigner besides the American general 
Dwight Eisenhower to be decorated with the Soviet Order 
of Victory."^ On July 21, 1945, fifteen days after the 
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet had decorated the king, 
Soviet marshal Fedor Tolbukin presented King Michael, 
who was also a pilot, with two sport airplanes as a gift 
from Stalin and sign of his personal appreciation.^ The 
leader of the Romanian Communist Party, Gheorghe 
Gheorghiu-Dej, just freed from Nazi jail, was shown by 
the media of those days kneeling before the king and 
kissing his hand to thank him for his outstanding act of 
courage. Three years later, the same Gheorghiu-Dej, now 

installed by Stalin as Romania’s ruler, had King Michael 
framed as a Nazi collaborator and Western spy and 
expelled him from the country.^ 

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Romanians were 
framed after that. Romania’s Danube-Black Sea Canal 
trial was one of the most contemptible framing operations 
of that era. Inspired by Stalin, who had altered the course 
of the Volga, Gheorghiu-Dej decided to build a navigable 
canal connecting the Danube with the Black Sea. Dej’s 
plan lay far beyond Romania’s engineering capabilities at 
that time, and several years after the first shovelful of 
earth had been dug, little had been accomplished. Dej saw 
that there was no hope of completing the project in the 
foreseeable future. To extricate himself, he decided to 
close the construction site and blame the lack of progress 
on Western sabotage. 

On a Securitate report showing the difficulties faced 
by the management of that mastodon project, Dej 
penciled in his distinctive, violet lead: “The persons 
named here should be arrested, publicly tried as saboteurs, 
and executed.” The show trial took place in July 1953, 
accompanied by street demonstrations demanding that the 
“saboteurs” be publicly hanged. Three people were 
executed and four sentenced to long terms in jail. Soon 
afterward, the construction site of the Danube-Black Sea 
Canal was closed, and for many years the public did 
indeed believe it had been sabotaged by Western 

intelligence agents. 

The Kremlin’s practice of framing political or 
religious leaders, negatively or positively, has a long 
history. Imre Nagy, the Hungarian prime minister whom 
the Kremlin believed to have generated the Hungarian 
uprising of 1956, was marked for demotion. He was 
kidnapped from Hungary by a Soviet KGB/Romanian 
DIE team, framed as a Zionist spy, and hanged.^ The 
details I disclosed about that framing, published in 1987 
in my book Red Horizons, aroused so much interest in 
communist Hungary, that a year later the book was 
secretly republished there in an illegal, pocket-size 
samizdat Hungarian edition (now a highly desired 
collector’s item). 

On the other hand, Urho Kaleva Kekkonen, Finland’s 
long-time president and a Soviet agent, was marked for 
promotion. Kekkonen was built up as a successful 
political leader by the KGB and its predecessors (which 
had ghost-written his public speeches for almost twenty 
years). Kekkonen was manipulated by the Soviets until 
1981, when he ended his twenty- five-year term as 
president of the then Soviet-friendly Finland.^ Olof 
Palme, also marked for promotion, was molded into a 
Swedish prime minister and helped by the KGB to export 
the Soviet welfare state to Western Europe. 

Herbert Wehner, who became a member of the West 
German cabinet in charge of “all-German affairs” 

(meaning relations with East Germany), was an 
apprentice clerk before joining the German Communist 
Party in 1927 and defecting to the Soviet Union. There he 
was molded into a Social Democratic political leader by 
the Soviet political police, which later fabricated a 
background for him showing that he had spent World War 
II in Sweden — not in the Soviet Union, as was the truth. 
In 1946, Stalin dispatched Wehner to West Germany via 
Sweden. Wehner ’s invented biography as an anti-Nazi 
and anticommunist militant — a Soviet fabrication — 
helped him become deputy chairman of the 
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) in 1958, 
to chair the SPD group in the Bundestag (1969-1983), 
and to become a member of the West German 
government (1969-1983). Wehner remained a top West 
German politician until his death in 1990. 

In 1974, 1 had my last meeting with Willy Brandt, the 
chairman of the SPD, who had become West Germany’s 
chancellor and the author of its Ostpolitik (an opening 
toward the East, meaning the Soviet Union and its East 
German vassal). On that day, Brandt seemed distressed. 
This was shortly after the arrest of Gunter Guillaume, an 
East German “illegal” officer groomed to ingratiate 
himself into West German political circles. He ended up 
becoming Brandt’s most trusted friend and adviser and 
practically ran the country. Guillaume’s arrest was 
shattering, and Brandt admitted to me that he felt 
betrayed. One month later, Brandt would write to the 

West German president: “I accept political responsibility 
for negligence in connection with the Guillaume 
espionage affair and declare my resignation from the 
office of federal chancellor.”^ 

As a matter of fact, framing KGB illegal officers as 
Western politicians helped the Kremlin acquire a better 
understanding of what was going on in some Western 
countries than it had of affairs in the Soviet Union itself 
The Cold War is over, but the Kremlin’s framing 
operations seem to be still en vogue — and even to be 
infecting the United States. 



Since ancient times, the Kremlin had manipulated 
religion according to its own interest. Russia’s tsars 
appointed themselves leaders of the Orthodox Church in 
order to instill domestic obedience. The first Soviet tsar, 
Vladimir Lenin, killed thousands of priests and closed 
most of Russia’s churches so as to make Marxism- 
Leninism the country’s sole religion.^ Stalin, who 
continued that bloody rampage, transformed Lenin’s new 
religion into Marxism-Leninism- Stalinism, and used it to 
portray himself as a Soviet saint in order to keep his 
famished, oppressed population quiet. Twenty years after 
the November 1917 revolution, only five hundred 

churches remained open in the Soviet Union.^ 

On August 23, 1939, the Kremlin started a war against 
non-Russian religions as well. On that day, the Soviet 
foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, and his German 
equivalent, Joachim von Ribbentrop, met in the Kremlin 
to sign the infamous Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact. 
German archive documents state that Stalin was euphoric 
that day. He told Ribbentrop: “The Soviet government 
takes this new pact very seriously. I can guarantee, on my 
word of honor, that the Soviet Union will not betray its 

There were many reasons for Stalin’s elation. Both 
he and Hitler believed in the historical need to expand 
their territorial empires. Stalin called that need “world 
proletarian revolution.” Hitler termed it '‘Lebensraum'' 
(living space). Both based their tyrannies on theft. Hitler 
stole the wealth of the Jews. Stalin stole the wealth of 
Russia’s Orthodox Church, and of the country’s 
bourgeoisie. Both Stalin and Hitler hated religion, and 
both replaced God with their own cult. 

The secret protocol of the Hitler-Stalin Pact 
partitioned Poland between the two signatories and gave 
the Soviets a free hand over Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Finland, Bessarabia, and Northern Bukovina. Most of 
these new countries were Catholic, which in Stalin’s mind 
meant subordinated to a foreign power — the Vatican. That 
was unacceptable for the man who had become the Soviet 

Union’s only god — at whose order 168,300 Russian 
Orthodox clergy had been arrested during the purges of 
1936-1938 alone, 100,000 of whom had been shot.^ The 
Russian Orthodox Church, which had had more than fifty- 
five thousand parishes in 1914, was now reduced to five 

The many hundreds of Catholic churches in those 
Baltic States that Hitler had just bartered off to the Soviet 
Union posed a new threat to Stalin’s image as the 
country’s Little Father — as the tsar had been called. Those 
churches were beholden to another father. Pope Pius XII, 
and Stalin refused to even consider allowing any rival to 
interfere with his absolute reign. 

Stalin could not dethrone the pope, who was highly 
praised and out of his reach. But he could wipe the 
Catholic churches off the face of the map in the new 
Baltic countries, just as he had done with the Russian 
Orthodox churches. 

Stalin’s solution was to dispatch his favorite hangman, 
Andrey Vyshinsky, to Sovietize the Baltic States and, in 
the process, to destroy their national Catholic Churches. 
Vyshinsky was an old NKVD (political police) hand who 
had worked wonders in the cover position of public 
prosecutor during Stalin’s war against the Russian 
Orthodox Church and during Stalin’s Great Purges of the 
years 1936 to 1938. Vyshinsky knew what he had to do. 
More than 7 million people had been sentenced to death 

and shot during the years he had been Stalin’s main 
prosecutor, just to make sure his boss was Russia’s only 

Latvia was occupied by the Red Army on June 17, 
1940, and the next day Vyshinsky arrived in Riga as 
Stalin’s special envoy. “I accompanied Comrade 
Vyshinsky when he went to Latvia,” General Aleksandr 
Sakharovsky once boasted to me, “and in 1943 I became 
Comrade Vyshinsky’s deputy for Sovietizing Romania.” 
(In 1951, General Sakharovsky came to Bucharest as 
chief Soviet adviser for the newly created Securitate, 
Romania’s equivalent of the Soviet political police, 
thereby becoming my de facto boss. In 1956 Sakharovsky 
went on to become chief of the entire Soviet foreign 
intelligence service, a position he held for most of the 
Cold War years. According to Sakharovsky, the 
Sovietization of Romania, carried out by the same 
Vyshinsky, was an improved version of the Latvian 

A few days after Vyshinsky arrived in Riga, he forced 

Karlis Ulmanis, the Latvian president, to appoint a 

“people’s government” consisting of members who had 
already been approved by Moscow. In accordance with 
Vyshinsky’s plan, only two members of the new 
government were communists: the minister of interior and 
the chief of the national police. 

After he succeeded in installing his government. 

Vyshinsky delivered a speech from the balcony of the 
Soviet Embassy in Riga, assuring the population that 
Moscow did not have the slightest intention of including 
Latvia in the Soviet Union. A couple of days later, 
however, Vyshinsky ordered his Latvian chief of police to 
arrest President Ulmanis and the main leaders of Latvia. 
They were then deported to the Soviet Union with the 
help of security police Vishinsky had brought with him to 
Riga. He forced the new “people’s govemmenf ’ to 
schedule parliamentary elections in two weeks, and he set 
up a “Working People’s Bloc” (controlled by undercover 
Soviet security police officers) to run the elections — ^with 
a single list of candidates. 

Vyshynsky’s elections took place on July 14-15, 

1940. There was no secret ballot. Only the tabulation of 
the votes was secret; it was conducted by the Ministry of 
Interior, headed by one of Vyshinsky’s men. The results 
claimed that 97.8 percent of the votes were for the 
(unknown) Bloc candidates. Soon after that, the newly 
bom Latvian Communist Party launched the slogan 
“Soviet Latvia.” Speaking again from the balcony of the 
Soviet Embassy, Vyshinsky expressed his hope that the 
newly elected “people’s parliament” would realize the 
wish implied in that slogan. Of course, that is exactly 
what happened. 

On July 21, 1940, Vyshinsky’s parliament proclaimed 
Latvia a Soviet republic, and two weeks later Moscow’s 
Supreme Soviet incorporated it into the Soviet Union. It 

did not take long for Latvia’s Catholic priests to be sent to 
Soviet gulags and for their churches to be closed. 

Soon after that, Vyshinsky integrated Estonia and 
Lithuania into the Soviet Union in the same manner. The 
entire Catholic hierarchy and about a third of the Catholic 
population of those two small countries was either 
deported or shot.^ 




While vyshinsky was demolishing the Catholic churches 
in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, Stalin learned that 
Hitler intended to sign a Tripartite Pact with Italy and 
Japan. In September 1940, Stalin sent his spy chief, 
Vladimir Dekanozov — a trusted fellow Georgian covered 
as deputy minister of foreign affairs — to Berlin. There, 
during a walk in the woods, he gave Ribbentrop to 
understand that Stalin was ready to join the Axis. On 
November 12, 1940, Stalin sent his closest collaborator. 
Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, to Berlin to finalize 
the details of his future cooperation with the Berlin- 
Rome-Tokyo Axis. 

Stalin believed those talks were successful, and on 
November 20 he appointed his spy chief as Soviet 
ambassador to Germany. Dekanozov presented his letters 
of accreditation to Hitler on December 19, 1940, without 
knowing that on the previous day the Fiihrer had 
approved Operation Barbarossa for the invasion of the 
Soviet Union, and that he had ordered his troops to be 
ready by May 15, 1941. 

A few weeks later, Stalin scribbled on an intelligence 
report predicting that Hitler would attack the Soviet 
Union in June 1941: 

You can send your ‘source’ to his fucking mother. This is a 

dezinformator. ^ 

On June 22, 1941, Hitler did indeed betray his 
nonaggression pact with Stalin when he invaded the 
Soviet Union, seeking Lebensraum for the German 
people.^ For the first few weeks, the Nazis met no 
organized resistance from the Red Army. The Russians 
paid a heavy price for Stalin’s love affair with Hitler. Ten 
million military men and fourteen million civilians were 
killed. Five million more were taken prisoner by the 

On December 7, 1941, while Hitler’s armies were at 
Moscow’s gates, Japan suddenly pushed the United States 
into the war by attacking the American naval base at Pearl 
Harbor. That attack saved Stalin’s skin and gave him a 

new lease on life. On the following day, President 
Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress that December 
7 was “a date which will live in infamy.”^ He requested a 
declaration of the existence of a state of war between 
Japan and the United States, and Congress voted in favor 
of the declaration. 

Soon thereafter, the United States began supplying 
huge quantities of military hardware to the Soviet Union 
to help Stalin demolish a substantial part of Hitler’s 
military machine. It worked. 

On April 20, 1945, the Red Army reached the 
outskirts of Berlin, and ten days later Hitler committed 
suicide. (The Nazi propaganda machine announced that 
he had died fighting with his last breath for Germany and 
against Bolshevism.^) On May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany 
capitulated to the Allies, which now included the Soviet 
Union. Once denied diplomatic relations with most of the 
Free World, Stalin now joined the exclusive victors’ club. 
He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize^ and was 
ready to take on the world. 

However, there was one more enemy Stalin wanted to 
defeat: the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the last Vatican 
enclave in the Soviet Union. The very prominent 
archbishop of Lvov, Josyf Slipi, and most of Ukraine’s 
bishops, including Gregory Chomysyn, Jown Layesvki, 
Nicolas Camecki, and Josaphat Kocylovsky, were framed 
by Stalin’s political police as “Nazi collaborators.” All 

were sent to jail or slave-labor camps. Some five hundred 
Ukrainian Catholic priests were sent, without trial, to 
gulags — officially phrased as “destination unknown for 
political reasons.”^ Bishop Niceta Budka was sent to a 
Siberian gulag — where he perished in December 1945. 
Hundreds of other leaders of the Ukrainian Catholic 
Church were also framed as Nazi collaborators.^ 

Pius XII answered by issuing an encyclical 
(Orientales Omnes Ecclesiaef to the faithful in Ukraine 
— and indirectly to those in the Baltic States — assuring 
them that “God will do justice,” and that “in His loving 
kindness He will Himself calm this terrible storm and 
finally bring it to an end.”^ 

Stalin took Pius XIFs encyclical as a declaration of 
war, and he answered as was his wont: six Ukrainian 
bishops were immediately framed as Nazi collaborators 
and murdered. Now was the moment for Stalin to open 
an ad hominem offensive against Pius XII himself. 

In those days, Stalin’s most effective way to slander 
people was to accuse them of being pro-Nazi — a 
treasonous offense in World War II. In 1945, Stalin 
created an intelligence unit that specialized in framing 
people as Nazi collaborators — SMERSH. Stalin himself 
had a hand in coining its name. It was from the Russian 
words meaning “death to spies” (smert shpionam). Stalin 
subordinated the unit directly to himself Its thugs soon 
became adept at the mass framing of people as Nazis, 

forcing them to confess and removing them from the 
scene by arrest, trial, imprisonment, or death. 

SMERSH started out by slandering as Nazi 
collaborators hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens 
living in areas of the Soviet Union that had been occupied 
by the German Army, as well as almost all of the more 
than 2 million repatriated Soviet soldiers who had been 
taken prisoner by the German Wehrmacht. ^ ^ 

In June 1945, the US ambassador in Moscow, Averell 
Harriman, reported to the State Department: “The 
Embassy knows of only a single instance in which a 
repatriated prisoner has returned to his home and family 
in Moscow.”^^ Washington would later learn that 
SMERSH had framed most of those repatriates as Nazi 
collaborators and sent them to Soviet gulags above the 
Arctic Circle, where many died.^^ 

Stalin’s SMERSH used the same strategy to discredit 
Bulgaria’s pro-Westem leaders in order to replace them 
with Moscow’s men. Although Bulgaria never declared 
war against the Allies and had been one of only three 
European countries (along with Finland and Denmark) 
that had saved their entire Jewish population, Andrey 
Vyshinsky, whom Stalin charged to Sovietize Bulgaria, 
nevertheless tasked SMERSH with portraying most of the 
country’s leaders as Nazi war criminals. 

Thus, on February 2, 1945, Vyshinsky and his 
SMERSH unit for Bulgaria executed three regents, 22 

ministers, 68 members of parliament, and 8 advisers to 
King Boris, after framing them as Nazi war criminals. 
During the following months, another 2,680 members of 
Bulgaria’s government were executed by the Soviet 
security forces as Nazi war criminals, and 6,870 were 
imprisoned, even though most of those leaders had been 
instrumental in bringing Bulgaria over to the Allied side. 
The United States, which had helped Bulgaria stay out of 
the war, was momentarily nonplussed, and Moscow leapt 
at the chance to install its own puppet regime. That was 
the beginning of the end for a democratic Balkan area — 
for a long while. 

Now Stalin and his SMERSH were ready to declare 
war on the Vatican itself It was a war the communist 
tyrant had to win. After all. Pope Pius was the single 
highest-profile Christian leader in the entire world, and 
atheistic communism’s very existence and expansion 
required that it discredit and demonize its chief 
competitor — the Christian faith. 

The next section of this book (Part II) unfolds one of 
the most consequential and dastardly disinformation 
campaigns of the entire Cold War era, the framing of a 
much-loved, anticommunist and anti-Nazi pope — one 
who not only opposed Hitler and defended Jews, but even 
personally sheltered Jews from persecution — into a 
supposed “Nazi collaborator.” Readers should prepare 
themselves for an in-depth, guided tour of a sophisticated, 
complicated, long-term, multifaceted campaign of pure 

lies and smears. That is the nature of disinformation. 







The war between communism and the Catholic Church is 
almost as old as communism itself. In 1846, two years 
before Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto, 
Pope Pius IX referred to “that infamous doctrine of so- 
called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the 
Natural Law” and which “would utterly destroy the rights, 
property and possessions of all men.” After World War II, 
as the Soviet Union spread its communistic doctrine into 
new territories, the battle became fiercer. 

On June 3, 1945, Radio Moscow proclaimed that the 
leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, had been 
“Hitler’s Pope,” mendaciously insinuating that he had 

been an ally of the Nazis during World War 11.^ This was 
the first salvo of a calculated SMERSH operation 
designed to smear the reigning pope in the eyes of the 

Radio Moscow’s insinuation fell flat as a pancake. 
Just the day before, on June 2, 1945, in an allocution to 
the Sacred College which was broadcast on Vatican 
Radio, Pius XII spoke of the “satanic specter of Nazism” 
and noted that his predecessor, Pius XI, called it what it 
really was: “the arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, the 
denial of His doctrine and of His work of redemption, the 
cult of violence, the idolatry of race and blood, the 
overthrow of human liberty and dignity.”^ As for his own 
efforts, Pius XII explained: 

Continuing the work of Our Predecessor, We never ceased 
during the war to oppose Nazi doctrine and practice the 
unshakable laws of humanity and Christian faith. This was 
for Us the most suitable, We may even say the only 
effective, way of proclaiming in the sight of the world the 
unchanging principles of the moral law among so much 
error and violence, to confirm the minds and hearts of 
German Catholics in the higher ideals of truth and justice. 

Nor was it without effect. We know in fact that Our 
broadcasts, especially that of Christmas 1942, were in spite 
of every prohibition and obstacle studied by diocesan 

conferences and expounded to the people.^ 

Pius also noted the death of about two thousand 

Catholic priests at Dachau. The wartime pontiff did not 
vary in his approach to the Nazis, regardless of whether 
the victims were Catholic priests or Jewish peasants. 

The June 1944 edition of a bulletin put out by the 
“Jewish Brigade Group” (US Eighth Army) carried a 
front-page editorial that completely undermined Radio 
Moscow’s insinuation: “To the everlasting glory of the 
people of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church we can 
state that the fate of the Jews was alleviated by their truly 
Christian offers of assistance and shelter. The Israeli 
Federation of Labor’s daily newspaper, Davar, quoted a 
Jewish Brigade officer shortly after Rome’s liberation: 
“When we entered Rome, the Jewish survivors told us 
with a voice filled with deep gratitude and respect: ‘If we 
have been rescued, if Jews are still alive in Rome, come 
with us and thank the pope in the Vatican. For in the 
Vatican proper, in churches, monasteries and private 
homes, Jews were kept hidden at his personal orders.’”^ 

Another event that took place just weeks earlier made 
Radio Moscow ’s insinuation outright ridiculous. On 
February 13, 1945, the chief rabbi of Rome and his wife, 
Israel and Emma Zolli, converted to Catholicism during a 
widely popularized ceremony. Zolli adopted the Christian 
name Eugenio to honor the man who, according to him, 
had done so much to protect the Jews during the war: 
Pope Pius XII, bom Eugenio Pacelli. In his 1945 memoir, 
Zolli explained: 

No other hero in history has eommanded sueh an army; an 
army of priests works in eities and small towns to provide 
bread for the perseeuted and passports for the fugitives. 

Nuns go into eanteens to give hospitality to women 
refugees. Superiors of eonvents go out into the night to 
meet German soldiers who look for vietims .... Pius XII is 
followed by all with the fervor of that eharity that fears no 

death. ^ 

It may be hard for someone who was not there, at the 
heart of the Fascist persecution of the Jews, to understand 
why Rabbi Zolli took Pius XIFs name. Zolli, however, 
had just witnessed how thousands and thousands of lives 
within his own Jewish congregation, people he knew and 
loved, had been saved by Pius XII, and Zolli decided to 
pay his respects in his own way. He wrote that his 
conversion was based on a true religious revelation, but 
he chose the Christian name Eugenio and had the pope act 
as his sponsor (or godfather) as a way of thanking him for 
his efforts to protect the Jews during the war. 

Radio Moscow’s insinuation that Pius XII was “Hitler’s 
Pope” attracted no attention whatsoever in the West, 
because the pope’s heroic support of the Allies and 
generous aid to the Jews during World War II was still 
fresh in people’s minds. They knew this man too well, 
based on the word of the highest Western authorities, for 

the insinuation to take hold. 

On August 3, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
wrote to the pontiff: 

I should like ... to take this oeeasion to express to His 
Holiness my deeply- felt appreeiation of the frequent 
aetions whieh the Holy See has taken ... to render 
assistanee to the vietims of raeial and religious 


On September 6, 1944, Winston Churchill announced: 
“I have spoken today to the greatest man of our time.”^ 
Churchill admired Pius XH’s “simplicity, sincerity and 
power. Albert Einstein wrote: “Only the Church 
protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till 
then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I 
felt a great admiration for the Church, which alone has 
had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral 
liberty.” The secular magazine Wisdom editorialized: 
“Of all the great figures of our time, none is more 
universally respected by men of all faiths than Pope Pius 

Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli had become Pope Pius XII 
on March 2, 1939, as the world was on the brink of war. 
From his first days as pontiff, he unequivocally took the 
Allies’ side against Hitler. One day after his coronation, 
Pius held a series of meetings with the US ambassador to 
England, Joseph P. Kennedy (father of the future 

president). Afterwards, Kennedy wrote to his superiors at 
the US Department of State indicating that the new pope 
held a “subconscious prejudice that has arisen from his 
belief that Nazism and Fascism are pro-pagan, and as pro- 
pagan, they strike at the roots of religion.” Pius was 
greatly disturbed by the “trend of the times.” 

Nevertheless, Kennedy deemed it prudent for such 
opinions to be kept private, and he urged the pope to enter 
into negotiations with the Reich. 

During World War II, many Germans were involved 
in resistance work. One of the most ambitious plans came 
from the High Command of the German Armed Forces, 
which in late 1939 began plotting to overthrow Hitler. 

The reaction by other nations to an anti-Hitler coup was a 
serious concern. If they were to stage a revolt, the British 
and French might take military advantage of it, occupy 
Germany, and mete out harsh justice. The resisters 
therefore wanted to reach an understanding with the 

There was only one neutral leader who was trusted by 
the resistance: Pope Pius XII. Noted Protestant minister 
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was already communicating with the 
Vatican about his resistance work.^^ The leaders of this 
planned coup recruited Josef Muller, a lawyer from 
Munich, to travel to the Vatican to ask the pope to broker 
a peace agreement. 

Although he was concerned about how this would 

impact the Vatican’s neutrality, Pius XII relayed 
messages between Muller and the British. On several 
occasions Muller also brought messages concerning 
military plans and troop movements. Pius forwarded these 
warnings to the threatened governments.^"^ In fact, on 
February 28, 1940, Pius met with the American 
ambassador to Italy for forty-five minutes and conveyed 
much potentially useful military information.^^ As others 
have noted: “Never in all history had a pope engaged so 
delicately in a conspiracy to overthrow a tyrant by 

In May 1940, anti-Hitler Germans sent a message to 
the Vatican concerning the German plans to invade 
Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. Pius forwarded 
these messages on to the Allies. Despite the warning, 
the Allies were unable to capitalize on the information. 

On May 10, 1940, German troops moved in. On the very 
night of the invasions, Pius personally drafted three 
messages of condolence that were then sent, via 
telegrams, to the Queen of Holland, the King of Belgium, 
and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. They were also 
printed on the front page of the May 12 issue of the 
Vatican newspaper.^^ (Most of the 180,000 copies were 
confiscated shortly after they were delivered to the 
newsstands; news carriers were savagely beaten.^ 

Mussolini took the telegrams as a serious personal 
affront. He called the papacy “a disease wasting away the 

life of Italy,” and he promised to rid himself of this 
“turbulent priest. The editor of the Fascist publication 
Regime Facista wrote in October 1942: “The Church’s 
obstruction of the practical solution of the Jewish problem 
constitutes a crime against the New Europe. 

According to the London Tablet of October 24, out of 
disgust at the number of Jews that were released from 
Nazi-occupied areas owing to Vatican pressure, the Third 
Reich circulated 10 million copies of a pamphlet saying 
that Pius XII inspired a lack of confidence in the Catholic 
world.^"^ The pamphlet argued that earlier popes had not 
been friendly to Jews, and this “pro-Jewish” pope was the 
only one who “found it necessary to make interventions 
on behalf of Jews.”^^ Mussolini, too, vented his 
displeasure over the “anti-dictatorial darts” that appeared 
in L ’Osservatore Romano?^ 

Invoking Pius XII’s name three times, the American 
bishops released a profoundly pro-Jewish statement on 
November 14, 1942. It said: 

Since the murderous assault on Poland, utterly devoid of 
every semblanee of humanity, there has been a 
premeditated and systematie extermination of the people of 
this nation. The same satanie teehnique is being applied to 
many other peoples. We feel a deep sense of revulsion 
against the eruel indignities heaped upon Jews in eonquered 
eountries and upon defenseless peoples not of our faith .... 
Deeply moved by the arrest and maltreatment of the Jews, 
we eannot stifle the ery of eonseienee. In the name of 

humanity and Christian principles, our voice is raised . . . 

We cannot too strongly condemn the inhuman treatment to 
which Jewish people have been subjected in many 


Pius sent them a letter thanking them for their 
collaboration.^^ He also told a Spanish diplomat, “If the 
Germans win, it will mean the greatest period of 
persecution that Christians have ever suffered. 

In late 1942, Pius sent three letters of support to 
bishops in Nazi-occupied Poland. The letters were 
intended to be read by the bishops to the faithful. The 
bishops all thanked the pontiff, but said they could not 
publish his words or read them aloud. Bishop Stefan 
Sapieha of Krakow explained in a letter dated October 28 
“It displeases us greatly that we cannot communicate 
Your Holiness’ letters to our faithful, but it would furnish 
a pretext for further persecution and we have already had 
victims suspected of communicating with the Holy 
See. ’’Pius would later cite this experience in a letter to 
Bishop Konrad von Preysing of Berlin: 

We leave it to the [local] bishops to weigh the 
circumstances in deciding whether or not to exercise 
restraint to avoid greater evil. This would be advisable if 
the danger of retaliatory and coercive measures would be 
imminent in cases of public statements by the bishop. Here 
lies one of the reasons We Ourselves restrict Our public 
statements. The experience We had in 1942 with 

documents which We released for distribution to the 
faithful gives justification, as far as We can see, for Our 


In his 1942 Christmas statement, broadcast over 
Vatican Radio, Pius said that the world was “plunged into 
the gloom of tragic error,” and he spoke of the need for 
mankind to make “a solemn vow never to rest until 
valiant souls of every people and every nation of the earth 
arise in their legions, resolved to bring society, and to 
devote themselves to the services of the human person 
and of a divinely ennobled human society.” He said that 
mankind owed this vow to “the hundreds of thousands 
who, through no fault of their own, and solely because of 
their nationality or race, have been condemned to death 
or progressive extinction. He urged all Catholics to 
give shelter wherever they could. In making this 
statement and others during the war, Pius used the Latin 
word stirpe, which means race or nationality, but which 
had been used for centuries as an explicit reference to 

British records reflect the opinion that “the Pope’s 
condemnation of the treatment of the Jews & the Poles is 
quite unmistakable, and the message is perhaps more 
forceful in tone than any of his recent statements.”^^ A 
Christmas Day editorial in the New York Times praised 
Pius XII for his moral leadership: 

This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voiee erying 
out of the silenee of a eontinent. ... In these eireumstanees, 
in any eireumstanees, indeed, no one would expeet the 
Pope to speak as a politieal leader, or a war leader, or in 
any other role than that of a preaeher ordained to stand 
above the battle, tied impartially, as he says, to all people 
and willing to eollaborate in any new order whieh will 
bring a just peaee. . . . Pope Pius expresses as passionately 
as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for 
freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new 
world must fight for free ehoiee of government and 

religious order. 

The pope’s Christmas message was not hard for the 
Axis leaders to decipher. The German ambassador to the 
Vatican complained that Pius had abandoned any pretense 
at neutrality and was “clearly speaking on behalf of the 
Jews.”^^ One German report stated: 

In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated 
the National Soeialist New European Order. . . . [H]is 
speeeh is one long attaek on everything we stand for . . . 

God, he says, regards all people and raees as worthy of the 
same eonsideration. Here he is elearly speaking on behalf 
of the Jews ... he is virtually aeeusing the German people 
of injustiee toward the Jews, and makes himself the 

mouthpieee of the Jewish war eriminals.^^ 

Unfortunately, recognition that their evil actions had 
been noticed by the pope did not cause the Nazis to 
change their behavior. 

On May 5, 1943, the Vatican secretariat issued a 
memorandum regarding the horrors being faced by Polish 

The Jews. A dreadful situation. There were approximately 
four and a half million of them in Poland before the war; 
today the estimate is that not even a hundred thousand 
remain there, ineluding those who have eome from other 
eountries under German oeeupation. In Warsaw a ghetto 
had been established whieh eontained six hundred and fifty 
thousand of them; today there would be twenty to twenty- 
five thousand. Some, naturally, have avoided being plaeed 
on the list of names. But there is no doubt that most have 
been liquidated. The only possible explanation here is that 
they have died. ... There are speeial death eamps near 
Lublin (Treblinka) and Brest-Litovsk. It is said that by the 
hundreds they are shut up in ehambers where they [are] 
gassed to death and then transported in tightly sealed eattle 

tmeks with lime on their floors. 

On June 2, 1943, in an address to the cardinals that 
was broadcast on Vatican Radio and clandestinely 
distributed in printed form, the pope expressed in new and 
clear terms his compassion and affection for the Polish 
people and predicted the rebirth of Poland. He assured his 
listeners that he regarded all people with equal good will. 
He then provided a bit more insight into his thoughts. 

[D]o not be surprised. Venerable Brothers and beloved 
sons, if our soul reaets with partieular emotion and pressing 
eoneern to the prayers of those who turn to us with anxious 

pleading eyes, in travail beeause of their nationality or their 
raee (stirpe), before greater eatastrophes and ever more 
aeute and serious sorrows, and destined sometimes, even 

without fault of their own, to exterminating eonstraints.^^ 

The pope warned the cardinals to be cautious about 
what they said. “Every word we address to the competent 
authority on this subject, and all our public utterances, 
have to be carefully weighed and measured by us in the 
interests of the victims themselves, lest, contrary to our 
intentions, we make their situation worse and harder to 

In June 1943, after Italy’s King Victor Emmanuel III 
arrested Mussolini, Hitler sent his troops into Rome. They 
took the city after just two days of fighting. Rome’s 
population was swollen to almost double its size by 
refugees drawn by what they thought was the protection 
of an open city. Pius had the Vatican secretary of state 
write to the leaders of all religious orders and ask them to 
help refugees in any way they could. At first, people 
could pass freely into Vatican City, but when the Nazis 
realized the pope was offering shelter to Jews and other 
refugees, they began checking identification. The Church 
countered by providing fake identification for people 
wanting to enter the Vatican. Later still, many people 
made mad dashes to safety after dark. 

All available Church buildings were put to use. One 
hundred fifty such sanctuaries were opened in Rome 

alone. “Shelters were improvised everywhere, in lofts, in 
storage rooms under stairs, hidden behind blind doors or 
cupboards, subterranean galleries, ancient Roman doors 
used as escape routes: all this as soon as the alert sounded 
— according to agreed signs, such as the convent bells — 
that a Nazi inspection was approaching.”^^ Catholic 
hospitals were ordered to admit as many Jewish patients 
as possible, even if their ailments were fictitious. Castel 
Gandolfo, the pope’s normal summer home, was used to 
shelter thousands of refugees. A wartime US intelligence 
document reported that the “bombardment of Castel 
Gandolfo resulted in the injury of about 1,000 people and 
the death of about 300 more. The highness of the figures 
is due to the fact that the area was crammed with 
refugees. No one but Pope Pius XII had authority to 
open his summer home to outsiders. In fact, his personal 
bedroom was converted to a nursery and birthing area, 
and about forty babies were bom there during the war.^^ 
Father Robert Leiber, Pius XII’s private secretary and 
personal confidant during the war said: “The Pope sided 
very unequivocally with the Jews at the time. He spent his 
entire private fortune on their behalf. . . . Pius spent what 
he inherited himself, as a Pacelli, from his family. 
Similarly, rescuer John Patrick Carroll- Abbing wrote: 

Never, in those tragie days, eould I have foreseen, even in 
my wildest imaginings, that the man who, more than any 
other, had tried to alleviate human suffering, had spent 

himself day by day in his unceasing efforts for peace, 
would twenty years later be made the scapegoat for men 
trying to free themselves from their own responsibilities 
and from the collective guilt that obviously weighs so 

heavily upon them."^^ 

German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop 
testified at Nuremberg that he had a “whole deskfull of 
protests” from Rome."^^ 

The \9A?>-\9AA American Jewish Yearbook VQ^oviQd 
that Pius XII “took an unequivocal stand against the 
oppression of Jews throughout Europe.” The head of the 
Italian Jewish Assistance Committee, Dr. Raffael Cantoni, 
who subsequently became the president of the Union of 
all Italian Jewish communities, reported: “The Church 
and the papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far as 
they could save Christians. ... Six millions of my co- 
religionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there 
could have been many more victims, had it not been for 
the efficacious intervention of Pius XII. 

In 1945, the chief rabbi of Romania, Dr. Alexander 
Safran, expressed the gratitude of the Jewish community 
for the Vatican’s help and support for prisoners in the 
concentration camps. Grand Rabbi Isaac Herzog of 
Jerusalem wrote: 

I well know that His Holiness the Pope is opposed from the 
depths of his noble soul to all persecution and especially to 
the persecution . . . which the Nazis inflict unremittingly on 

the Jewish people ... I take this opportunity to express . . . 
my sineere thanks as well as my deep appreeiation ... of 
the invaluable help given by the Catholie Chureh to the 
Jewish people in its afflietion. 

Chief Rabbi Herzog of Palestine, who was also father 
to the future president of Israel, said: “The people of 
Israel will never forget what his Holiness and his 
illustrious delegates ... are doing for us unfortunate 
brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history 
...” After the war, Herzog sent “a special blessing” to the 
pope for “his lifesaving efforts on behalf of the Jews 
during the Nazi occupation of Italy.” 

Grand Rabbi Herzog of Jerusalem sent a message 
expressing thanks for actions taken by Pius XII and the 
Holy See on behalf of Jewish people. After six months of 
research at Yad Vashem, Pinchas E. Lapide, the Israeli 
consul in Italy, wrote: 

The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the 
war than all other churches, religious institutions and 
rescue organizations put together. Its record stands in 
startling contrast to the achievements of the International 
Red Cross and the Western Democracies . . . The Holy See, 
the nuncios, and the entire Catholic Church saved some 

400,000 Jews from certain death."^^ 

He eventually increased his estimate to about 860,000 

The World Jewish Congress also expressed its thanks 

and donated two million lire (about $20,000) to Vatican 
charities. The press reported that the gift was given in 
recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews 
from Fascist and Nazi persecution."^^ Dr. Joseph Nathan, a 
representative of the Hebrew Commission, expressing 
thanks for support during the Holocaust, said: “Above all, 
we acknowledge the Supreme Pontiff and the religious 
men and women who, executing the directives of the Holy 
Father, recognized the persecuted as their brothers and, 
with great abnegation, hastened to help them, 
disregarding the terrible dangers to which they were 

The National Jewish Welfare Board wrote to Pius: 
“From the bottom of our hearts we send to you. Holy 
Father of the Church, the assurance of our unforgotten 
gratitude for your noble expression of religious 
brotherhood and love.”^^ 

The New York Times reported that Rome’s population 
grew during Nazi occupation because “in that period 
under the Pope’s direction the Holy See did an exemplary 
job of sheltering and championing the victims of the 
Nazi-Fascist regime. I have spoken to dozens of Italians, 
both Catholics and Jews, who owe their liberty and 
perhaps their lives to the protection of the church. In some 
cases anti-Fascists were actually saved from execution 
through the Pope’s intervention.”^^ The article went on to 
explain that “none doubt that the general feeling of the 

Roman Curia was anti-Fascist and very strongly anti- 
Nazi.” The World Jewish Congress, on December 1, 
1944, at its war emergency conference in Atlantic City, 
sent a telegram of thanks to the Holy See for the 
protection it gave “under difficult conditions to the 
persecuted Jews in German-dominated Hungary. 

The end of the war saw Pius XII hailed as “the 
inspired moral prophet of victory, and he “enjoyed 
near-universal acclaim for aiding European Jews through 
diplomatic initiatives, thinly veiled public 
pronouncements, and, very concretely, an unprecedented 
continent- wide network of sanctuary. As explained by 
an author and correspondent who lived in postwar Italy: 

Only by the most strenuous means had Pius XII, an 
extraordinary being, maintained the prestige of the Chureh. 
This tall, frail man with piereing blaek eyes had for twenty- 
five years eondueted an almost ineredibly arduous reign. 

He had literally thrown open the huge bronze doors of the 
Vatiean and invited people to eome to him. No longer was 
the Viear of Christ unapproaehable ... He had seen to it 
that for the first time sinee the fourteenth eentury foreign 
eardinals outnumbered Italians in the Saered College and 
he had severely eondemned raeialism, anti-Semitism and 

totalitarian doetrines.^^ 

Stalin lost his 1945 battle against Pius XH, but he was 
determined to win the war. Stalin believed in Lenin’s 

1904 book: One Step Forward Two Steps Back (The 
Crisis in Our Party). Pius XII was, evidently, much too 
big a fish for Stalin’s SMERSH to go after at that time. 
Instead, Stalin decided to focus on framing some of the 
cardinals whom he had inherited with the new East 
European satellites. They would be indicted as having 
been pro-Nazi, of course, as that was what had worked so 
well before. Stalin was sure the framing of the cardinals 
would prove valuable later, when the climate would be 
more propitious for secretly framing Pius XII without 
revealing the Soviet hand. 

It was time for Stalin to call upon Vyshinsky again. 



The new york times of September 6, 2009, displayed a 
picture of what it referred to as the “controversial” 
Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac’s new tomb in the Cathedral of 
the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Zagreb, 
Croatia. Stepinac, however, should never have been 
considered “controversial.” In 1946, he was framed as a 
Nazi collaborator by Stalin’s framing machinery. That 
same year, Louis Breier, a Jewish community leader, 
organized a protest in New York City to defend the 
memory of Stepinac. Breier declared: 

This great man was tried as a eollaborator of Nazism. We 
protest against this slander. He has always been a sineere 
friend of Jews, and was not hiding this even in times of 
eruel perseeutions under the regime of Hitler and his 

followers. Alongside with Pope Pius XII, Arehbishop 

Stepinae was the greatest proteetor of perseeuted Jews in 


Cardinal Stepinae ’s framing revealed the organic 
connection between Nazism and communism, and it 
proved that Pius XII was absolutely right to fight both. 
Like Pope Pius XII, Stepinae was a staunch opponent of 
Nazism and communism. Also like Pius XII, he openly 
defied those oppressive regimes. Both men were hated by 
Stalin, who ordered that both be framed. The primary 
difference between them was that Pius XII lived in the 
Vatican, where Stalin could not touch him physically, 
while Stepinae lived in a Soviet satellite country, where 
Stalin could not only frame him but also put him on trial. 

Stepinae was framed by Tito’s state security service, 
the UDBA (Uprava drzavne bezbednosti), an organization 
created by Stalin’s political police and in those days run 
by a Soviet intelligence veteran, Aleksander Rankovic, 
and his Soviet advisers. They did such a good job that 
even today many believe that Stepinae was engaged in 
persecution of the Serbs. 

Before and during the trial, Yugoslavian leader Josip 
(Broz) Tito made a series of public speeches condemning 
Pope Pius XII as an enemy of “the Yugoslav 
government,” but he did not limit his comments to 
Stepinae. He asked: “On whose side, however, was the 
Pope? He was not defending the Yugoslav cause.” The 

official Vatican newspaper L ’Osservatore Romano 
explained that, “Tito was echoing the Moscow line.”^ 
Years later, I learned from my Yugoslavian 
counterpart Silvo Gorenc that Stepinac’s show trial had 
been staged by Andrey Vyshinsky, the old intelligence 
hand who had worked undercover as the public prosecutor 
during Stalin’s purges. Three years after that trial, 
Vyshinsky became the foreign minister of the Soviet 

At the beginning of World War II, the area now known as 
Croatia was part of Yugoslavia. In March 1941, 
Yugoslavia formally joined Hitler’s Axis. Serbian 
nationalists seized control of Belgrade, however, and 
announced that they were siding with the Allies. As a 
result. Hitler invaded Yugoslavia and gave his support to 
Croat nationalists who declared an independent Croatia.^ 

The new Croat government was led by Ante Pavelic and 

dominated by his Nazi-like party, the Ustashe.^ The 
Ustashe government enacted race laws patterned after 
those of the Third Reich. Jews, as well as gypsies, Serbs, 
communists, and dissident Catholic priests were beaten, 
interned in concentration camps, or murdered. The 
brutality of the Ustashe shocked even the Nazis. 

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia 

was Archbishop Aloysius (“Alojzije” in Croatian) 
Stepinac. Historians have noted that when the brutality 
began, the archbishop “almost immediately . . . used his 
position to speak out against the treatment of Jews and 
Orthodox Christians.”^ Stepinac rescued hundreds of 
refugees through direct action, but many more “through 
his sermons in which he vigorously condemned the 
implementation of Racial Laws.”^ The French 
ambassador in Zagreb was convinced that Stepinac ’s 
interventions were behind the relaxation of race laws in 

Stepinac ’s sermons against the Ustashe abuses were so 
strong that soon the Church was not permitted to publish 
them. Catholics and others who were opposed to the 
regime copied and circulated them in secret, however.^ 
Stepinac also provided copies of his sermons, to enable 
the partisans to broadcast extracts over the radio. ^ On at 
least one occasion, Stepinac had a copy of his sermon 
smuggled to Chief Rabbi Freiberger of Croatia. In Italy 
and other occupied areas, the same was done with Pius 
XIFs radio broadcasts. 

In October 1941, the Ustashe destroyed the main 
synagogue in Zagreb. Shortly thereafter, at the cathedral, 
Stepinac roared: “A House of God, of whatever religion, 
is a holy place. Whoever touches such a place will pay 
with his life. An attack on a House of God of any religion 
constitutes an attack on all religious communities.”^^ 

In February 1942, Stepinac protested to the Interior 
minister about the destruction of Orthodox churches. 

The Associated Press reported that, “by 1942 Stepinac 
had become a harsh critic” of the Ustashe, condemning its 
“genocidal policies, which killed tens of thousands of 
Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and Croats. One sermon from 
October 31, 1943, was typical of many that the 
archbishop gave on the dignity of all humanity. He said: 

We have always asserted the value in publie life of the 
prineiples of the eternal law of God without regard to 
whether it applied to Croats, Serbs, Jews, Bohemians, 

Catholies, Mohammedans, or Orthodox. . . . The Catholie 
Chureh knows nothing of raees born to rule and raees 
doomed to slavery. The Catholie Chureh knows raees and 
nations only as ereatures of God. . . for it the Negro of 
Central Afriea is as mueh a man as the European. For it the 
king in a royal palaee is, as a man, exaetly the same as the 
lowest pauper or gypsy in his tent. . . . We eondemn all 
injustiee; all murder of innoeent people; all burning of 
peaeeful villages; all killings, all exploitation of the poor 

A German Nazi general in Zagreb declared at the 
time: “If any bishop in Germany were speaking this way, 
he would not descend alive from his pulpit! 

Stepinac ’s contempt for the Nazis is reflected in an 
incident that took place during the German occupation. 
Hans Frank, the Nazi official in charge of the occupation. 

continually hinted that he wanted to be invited to dinner at 
the archbishop’s residence. Presumably, this would help 
legitimize Frank’s position. Finally the invitation came. 
When Frank sat down to dine with the archbishop, he was 
served a meager meal of black bread (made in part from 
acorns), beet jelly, and ersatz coffee. Stepinac calmly 
explained that this was the only food he could obtain with 
the ration coupons provided by the Nazis, and he certainly 
could not risk the arrest of himself or one of his 
household servants by trading on the black market. 

In February 1944, the Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land, 
Isaac Herzog, sent a letter thanking the apostolic legate in 
Istanbul, Roncalli, for “all you have done” to save the 
Jews.^^ He also wrote to Abbot Marcone, the Vatican’s 
representative in Zagreb, to “express how deeply I 
appreciate all you have done for our unfortunate brothers 
and sisters,” noting that he was following the good 
example of Pope Pius XII. 

In 1944-45, communist partisans under Tito occupied 
Zagreb. The new Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia 
became a Soviet satellite. Its Moscow-controlled 
government nationalized the economy and undertook 
Soviet-style persecution of the Catholic Church by 
confiscating property closing seminaries and schools,^ ^ 
banning Masses, and persecuting clergy. 

Before coming to power, the communists “used 
Cardinal Stepinac’s speeches in their propaganda, as the 
cardinal always spoke against the Nazi occupation and 
against the violation of human rights committed by 

Pavelic.”^^ Now, however, the cardinal was a threat.^^ It 
“bothered the new regime that the Catholic Church was 
the only organization outside of its control. 

On May 15, 1945, Stepinac’s car was confiscated.^^ 
Two days later, the UDBA arrested him. The archbishop 
was held for seventeen days. On the day after his release, 
Tito summoned Stepinac for a face-to-face meeting.^^ The 
communist leader wanted the Croatian Church to sever its 
ties with Rome. Tito argued that the Vatican had not 
treated Slovak nations very well. Stepinac not only 
corrected Tito on historical facts, he threw down the 
gauntlet: “I insist upon freedom for all the people. You 
have given no sign that you intend to respect the 
Constitution. I am going to resist you on every move in 
which you disregard the Constitution and the people. 

In March 1946, Tito asked the Holy See to recall 
Stepinac and replace him with another archbishop. When 
— in accordance with Stepinac’s wishes — Pius XII 
refused the request, the stage was set for the archbishop’s 

At the beginning of September 1946, Stalin sent 
Vyshinsky to Zagreb. On September 18, Tito’s UDBA 
arrested Stepinac and charged him with six criminal 

counts, including: helping to organize Nazi crimes; 
collaboration with the Nazi puppet Pavelic and his 
Ustashe; and responsibility for crimes committed by 
chaplains in the Ustashe army.^^ 

Tito used his “justice” system as a “tool for solving 
political problems. “[TJrials were quick and merciless, 
without any objectivity.”^^ The Evangelical bishop, 
Zagreb’s Mufti, the head of the Croatian Orthodox 
Church, and others were tried and executed.^ ^ Even 
priests who had no connections to the Ustashe were 

Stepinac’s trial started on September 30, 1946. That 
day. Time magazine reported on the archbishop’s 

Archbishop Stepinac lashed out at the Nazi “master raee” 
idea and eondemned the exeeution of hostages as “inhuman 
and anti-Christian.” He was just as fearless in eondemning 
Communist outrages. In 1945, the Arehbishop wrote in a 
pastoral letter: “The enemies of the Catholie Chureh ... the 
followers of the materialistie eommunism . . . have in our 
Croatia exterminated with fire and sword priests and the 
more eminent of the faithful. . . . The number of dead priests 

is 243; 169 are in prison.”^ ^ 

The American press recognized the trial as a fraud. 
The prosecution had fifteen months of open access to 
government and church documents in which to prepare its 

case. Stepinac’s lawyers were restricted to a one-hour 
visit to their client and one week in which to collect 
evidence for the defense. American Archbishop Joseph 
Hurley was present as the representative of Pope Pius XII. 
Stepinac was not, however, permitted to consult with him 
during the proceedings.^^ Many defense witnesses were 
not permitted to testify, and much of the defendant’s 
evidence was disallowed. Key prosecution evidence was 
manufactured. As one author put it: 

The trial was a farce. The testimony of witnesses was 
falsified in court reports. Witnesses were threatened. Judges 
delivered long monologues, and provided the “appropriate” 
answers to their own questions. The courtroom was packed 
with Communist agitators, whose vocal demonstrations 
were heavily covered by the government-controlled media; 
only five Church representatives were allowed to be 


One hundred fifty priests from Zagreb risked arrest by 
issuing a statement in support of their archbishop,^ ^ and 
Pope Pius XII said: “We have the right and the duty to 
reject such false accusations.” He called it “a very sad 

On the fourth day of the proceedings, Stepinac gave a 
thirty-eight-minute speech. Time magazine reported that 
the archbishop “temporarily lost his equanimity.” He 
“shook an angry finger at the court, and cried: ‘Not only 
does the church in Yugoslavia have no freedom, but in a 

short while the church will be annihilated.’”^^ He 

For seventeen months a eampaign has been waged against 
me, publiely and in the press; and for twelve months I 
suffered aetual house arrest in the Arehbishop’s palaee. . . . 
During the war the Chureh had to find its way through 
eountless diffieulties. There was a desire to aid, as mueh as 
it was at all possible, the Serbian people. ... I was persona 
non grata to either the Germans or the Ustashe; I was not 
an Ustasha, nor did I take their oath as did some of the 
offieials of this eourt whom I see here. The Croatian nation 
unanimously deelared itself for the Croatian State and I 
would have been remiss had I not reeognized and 
aeknowledged this desire of the Croatian people enslaved 

by the former Yugoslavia.'^ ^ 

Stepinac accused his communist prosecutors of 
behaving like the Gestapo. He said his conscience was 
clear. He also said that he was being prosecuted in order 
for the state to attack the Church. He denied having 
conducted any religious conversions in bad faith.^^ 
Publication of the archbishop’s statement or the 
arguments made by his defense attorneys was prohibited 
during the entire rule of the communists in the former 
Yugoslavia. Those who made copies and clandestinely 
distributed them faced criminal prosecution.^^ A 
government-sponsored film that appeared in theaters 
throughout the nation shortly after the trial falsely made it 

appear that Stepinac offered no defense at all to the 

During his trial, the prosecution produced a report 
allegedly sent by the archbishop to the pope, dated May 
18, 1943. It bitterly condemned the Serbs and the 
Orthodox Church. It also showed Stepinac to have been 
working for the Ustashe and calling on the pope to 
arrange for foreign intervention in Yugoslavia.^^ 

Stepinac denied having written or sent this report.^^ It 
was not written on diocesan paper, and it did not have his 
address or signature. It was in Italian, instead of the 
formalized Latin style normally used by the archbishop. It 
referred to Stepinac as Metropoleta de Croatiae et 
Slovoniae, but Stepinac never referred to himself that 
way. It contained detailed information about Bosnia that 
Stepinac was unlikely to know, as Bosnia was not part of 
his diocese."^^ Although the communists claimed the letter 
was found in the Croatian Foreign Ministry offices, 
Stepinac never sent his reports there. The prosecutor, 

Jakov Blazevic, claimed to have a copy signed by 
Stepinac, but he did not produce it at the trial. Neither 
does it appear in the record of court documents."^^ 

In 1950, a group of American senators sought to allow 
American aid to Yugoslavia only on the condition of 
Archbishop Stepinac ’s release. Realizing the need for 
better relations with the West after the split with the 
Soviet Union, and also concerned about the archbishop’s 

declining health, Tito expressed a willingness to release 
Stepinac from prison if he would leave Yugoslavia.^^ As 
Time magazine explained: 

Marshal Tito, busy mending fences, made a direct offer to 
the Vatican last month to release imprisoned Archbishop 
Stepinac. Tito’s condition: that Stepinac leave Yugoslavia 
the moment he is released. Last week the Vatican reported 
Tito’s offer — and its own reply: no bargain. “The Holy See 
would be pleased if Monsignor Stepinac were freed,” said 
the answer to Tito. “The Holy See is informed, however, 
that that Most Excellent Prelate, being convinced of his 
innocence, prefers to remain near his faithful.” That seemed 

to hand Tito’s awkward dilemma right back to Tito.^^ 

Stepinac explained: “They will never make me leave 
unless they put me on a plane by force and take me over 
the frontier. It is my duty in these difficult times to stay 
with the people.”^ ^ 

In December 1951, Tito ordered Stepinac to be 
released from his cell and sent to house arrest in his native 

village of Krasic.^^ The Vatican still wanted Tito’s regime 

to acknowledge Stepinac ’s innocence and to resolve other 
outstanding issues. Quoting the Vatican newspaper. Time 
magazine reported: “Another bishop. His Excellency 
Monsignor Peter Cule of Mostar, is still unjustly held . . . 
Fully two hundred priests and religious are in prison. 
Seminaries are still held requisitioned, and monasteries 
and convents are still confiscated . . . Freedom of worship 

... is suffocated. 

Immediately after Stepinac’s transfer, Pope Pius XII 
announced that he would be elevated to the cardinalate. In 
response, Tito’s government severed diplomatic relations 
with the Vatican. Stepinac did not go to Rome to be 
invested as a Prince of the Church, because he knew that 
the Yugoslavian government would not permit him to 
return home. He explained: “To leave Yugoslavia in these 
times would mean to abandon my post and to abandon my 
people ... I shall stay here, if need be, until my death.”^^ 

Stepinac lived in two rooms in a small house next to a 

beautiful little church in Krasic. He was able to say Mass 

and administer the sacraments. He also wrote many letters 
to priests and others, encouraging them in the faith, 
though the communists monitored all of his writings and 
they were subject to confiscation.^^ When a visiting 
journalist asked him how he felt, the cardinal replied, 
“Here, the same as in Lepoglava ... I am doing my duty.” 
When asked what that was, he said: “to suffer and work 
for the Church. 

In 1953, Stepinac refused to go abroad for treatment of 
a blood-clotting problem. Two American physicians were, 
however, permitted to come to Yugoslavia to treat him. 
The disease, polycythemia (sometimes called ‘reverse 
leukemia’), involves an excess of red blood cells. It 
prompted Stepinac to joke: “I am suffering from an 

excess of reds.”^^ 

Stepinac’s health grew worse. He developed 
congested lungs, and he died of a pulmonary embolism on 
February 10, 1960. Years later, testing conducted by 
Vatican officials indicated that he had been slowly 

Time magazine reported that he had “never worn his 
cardinal’s red robe. But no living prince of the Roman 
Catholic Church had a better right to it than Alojzije 
Cardinal Stepinac ... For years, he was a silent but 
unforgotten symbol of the war between Communism and 

Pope John XXIII honored Stepinac with a Solemn 
Requiem Mass in St. Peter’s — a ceremony usually 
reserved for cardinals who have died in Rome. On the 
basis that Stepinac had been stripped of his archbishopric 
by the state, Tito decreed that the funeral could take place 

only in the little church at Krasic.^^ With mounting 

international pressure, however, he eventually gave 
permission for a funeral with full honors in Zagreb 

In 1985, Stepinac’s prosecutor, Jakov Blazevic, 
acknowledged that Stepinac had been framed and that he 
was tried only because he refused to sever ties between 
Croatians and the Roman Catholic Church.^^ Blazevic 
said that if Stepinac had agreed to head an independent 
Catholic Church, he would not have been brought to 


Nearly forty years after the trial, one of Tito’s senior 
legal officials by the name of Hrncevic, who had put 
together the original case against Stepinac and arranged 
the trial, stated: “The indictments were designed rather 
more for publicity than for legality. Yugoslavian 

political dissident Milovan Djilas, who had once been 

close to Tito, said that the problem with “Stepinac was 
not his policy towards Ustashe, but towards the 

In October 1998, after Croatia came out from under 
communism’s thumb, the Church beatified Stepinac. 

In framing Stepinac, Stalin and his Yugoslavian viceroys 
unintentionally created a record that today exposes the 
methodology of Soviet framing. A study of that record 
also shows how fabricated evidence designed to frame 
Stepinac as a pro-Nazi has tainted the investigation of 
Pope Pius XII’s record. 

In the 1960s, Italian writer Carlo Falconi wrote The 
Silence of Pius XII, a book entirely based on documents 
provided to him by the communist government of Croatia 
— including those used to frame Archbishop Stepinac. 

In fact, the title of each and every chapter in Falconi ’s 
book is related to Croatia. 

In his foreword, Falconi explained that the “central 
core of the Croatian documents” that had been provided 
to him by the Croatian (communist) government “brought 
to light an entirely new and unsuspected harvest of 
revelations on the men and the mysterious world” of high 
Vatican officials. Falconi’s book impressed researchers 
because it was highly footnoted and relied on documents 
that had been used in litigation. The Silence of Pius XII 
shaped much of the early scholarship “documenting” that 
Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” 

We now know that Falconi was not looking at 
legitimate documents, but at communist fabrications.^^ In 

1985, Jakov Blazevic, who prosecuted Stepinac, 
confessed that the documents on which the archbishop 
was tried were false. In 1992, one of the first acts of 
Parliament in the newly independent Croatia was to issue 
a declaration condemning the framing and “the political 
trial and sentence passed on Cardinal Stepinac in 1946.”^^ 
Though modem writers should know better. The 
Silence of Pius XI f based on false documents created by 
Croatian communist government, remains much cited to 
this day. John Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope, published in 
1999, made much use of it. In fact, Cornwell praised 
Falconi’s “painstaking” research.^^ 

Falconi and the works built upon his book have tainted 
the entire investigation into Pope Pius XII. As Croatian 
scholar Jure Kristo has explained: “The documents which 

both men [Falconi and Cornwell] used had, of course, 
been assembled by the Yugoslav secret police, then led by 
the Serbian Communist [head of the UDBA] Aleksandar 

Rankovic, and fed to Falconi in order to compromise 

Pope Pius XII as ‘Hitler’s Pope.’”^^ These documents 
have confounded scholars of Pope Pius XII for decades.^"^ 

In October 2008, on the tenth anniversary of Cardinal 
Stepinac’s beatification, thousands of people gathered to 
pay their respects to himJ^ For them, the cardinal was a 
courageous leader, a hero, and a saint. A courageous 
leader because he went alone to war against Nazism and 
communism. A hero because he won. And a saint because 
he sacrificed his life for the religious freedom of his 

In the annals of history. Cardinal Stepinac will also go 
down as a key witness in any future trial seeking to 
identify the true culprit in the vicious war against Pius XII 
and the Judeo-Christian world. It is a war that broke out in 
1945 and has never ended. 



Less than two years after Croatian Catholic Cardinal 
Stepinac was framed, Stalin focused on Joszef Cardinal 
Mindszenty, the Roman Catholic archbishop and primate 
of Hungary. In the highly classified manual of 
dezinformatsiya that codified my life within the Soviet 
intelligence community, it was proclaimed on the first 
page, all in upper case letters: “IF YOU ARE GOOD AT 
ANYTHING.” The KGB manual began with an example 
illustrating how framing could “neutralize even a saint.” 
The “sainf ’ in question was Mindszenty, called a “saintly 
hero” by the Vatican because of his epic resistance during 
his imprisonment by the Nazis (1944^5). 

The KGB manual summed up the “Mindszenty 

case” — ^with customary Soviet self-importance — as one of 
“our most stupendous, monumental dezinformatsiya 
operations.”^ The KGB considered framing its enemies an 
honorable task, and it was proud to boast about a 
successful operation. Soviet leaders and their political 
police organizations lived indeed in a world of their own, 
and they did not fear disclosure of their ways. In reality, it 
was — for those days — a quite sophisticated attempt to 
malign the Catholic Church. 

On December 26, 1948, Mindszenty was arrested by 
the AVO (Allamvedelmi Osztaly), the Hungarian 
subsidiary of the Soviet security police. At AVO 
headquarters in Budapest, Mindszenty was subjected to 
brutal nightly beatings and urged to sign confessions, 
which he refused to do. At his trial, held February 3-5, 
1949, he was framed with fabricated documents and 
sentenced to life imprisonment. It was Stepinac revisited. 

Two fortuitous circumstances make Mindszenty ’s case 
a real eye-opener into how Stalin and his security police 
went after Pius XITs archbishops and cardinals. The first 
is that Mindszenty was blessed with being able to survive 
with a clear head and write a detailed account of 
everything that had happened to him. His book. Memoirs, 
was published in New York in 1974 and provided 
devastating insight into the way the AVO slandered him 
as conspiring to overthrow the communist government 
and as having made illegal currency transactions. The 

second and unique event was that Laszlo and Hanna 
Sulner, a Hungarian couple who worked with the AVO to 
fabricate the documents used in Mindszenty’s framing, 
managed to escape to the West immediately after the trial 
started and published several accounts of exactly what 
they had done. Theirs is a fascinating story and sheds new 
light on how the Kremlin went about framing Pope Pius 
XII himself, many years later. 

Cardinal Mindszenty was bom Joszef Pehm in 
Mindszent, a village in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on 
March 29, 1892.^ His ancestors had all been Hungarians, 
traceable back for many generations, and his family 
members were all devout Roman Catholics, as were many 
Hungarians. He was ordained a priest in 1915 and 
patriotically adopted the name Mindszenty in 1941 when 
the Nazis were threatening all of Eastern Europe. In 1944, 
Pope Pius XII made him a bishop, and on September 16, 
1945, the same pope appointed him archbishop of 
Esztergom and primate of Hungary. 

Throughout his life, Mindszenty was an outspoken and 
politically active defender of humanitarian principles, 
causing him to be arrested by various dictatorships in the 
up-and-down of twentieth-century Hungarian politics. His 
first imprisonment was from Febmary 19 to May 15, 

1919, after he publicly attacked Michael Karolyi’s 
revolutionary government, becoming a leader in the 
newly founded Christian Party and editing a paper critical 

of the regime.^ Karolyi’s government gave way to Bela 
Kun’s short-lived “Hungarian Soviet Republic” in 1919. 
The communists continued to see Mindszenty as an 
opponent, and he was arrested again. After several 
harrowing days, during which his life hung in the balance, 
Mindszenty was sent back to live with his parents in his 
home village.^ 

During most of World War II, Hungary sided with 
Nazi Germany but remained unoccupied, therefore 
becoming a refuge for European Jews. In the spring of 
1944, however, the Germans invaded Hungary under the 
pretext of safeguarding communications. They set up a 
puppet government in Budapest and immediately issued 
anti- Jewish laws, insisting that the Jews be confined in 
ghettos. The Vatican protested vigorously and regularly 
against the inhumane treatment of the Jews in Hungary, as 
did all the Hungarian bishops, including Mindszenty.^ 

Catholic churches in Hungary offered conversion to 
thousands of Jews to save them from persecution and 
deportation, just as Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg 
saved many by giving them Swedish passports — until the 
Nazis caught on and began going after the converts.^ 

From November 1919 (when the Romanian army, 
with the consent of the Allied powers, ended Bela Kun’s 
“Hungarian Soviet Republic”) to October 1944, Hungary 
was headed by Adm. Nicholas Horthy. With the Nazis in 
control of Hungary, they began deporting Jews. This led 

to complaints from Catholic leaders. Horthy complained 
to the Germans that he was being bombarded with 
telegrams from the Vatican and others, and that the 
nuncio was calling on him several times each day.^ In the 
face of these protests, Horthy withdrew his support from 
the deportation process, making it impossible for the 
Germans to continue. In a cable to Pope Pius XII, Horthy 
wrote: “It is with comprehension and profound gratitude 
that I receive your cable and request you to be convinced 
that I shall do all within my power to make prevail the 
demands of Christian humanitarian principles.”^ 

Horthy agreed to work against the deportations and 
even signed a peace agreement with the Allies. More than 
170,000 Hungarian Jews were saved from deportation on 
the very eve of their intended departure.^ The Germans, 
however, would not be dissuaded. 

The Germans arrested Horthy in October, put Hungary 
under the control of a group of Hungarian Nazis known as 
the Arrow Cross, and the deportations resumed. On 
October 31, 1944, the Hungarian bishops, including 
Mindszenty, protested. That same month, Pius joined in 
an effort to raise money to support Hungarian refugees, 
urging all the faithful to redouble their efforts on behalf of 
all victims of the war, regardless of their race.^^ Almost 
every Catholic Church in Hungary provided refuge to 
persecuted Jews during the autumn and winter of 1944.^^ 
On November 26, 1944, Mindszenty was again 

arrested. This time it was for his opposition to the pro- 
Nazi Arrow Cross government, and he was charged with 
treason. Fortunately, he avoided trial and was freed when 
the German troops left on April 4, 1945. The country then 
came under Soviet occupation. 

Remarkably, Mindszenty was able to leave the country 
on November 30, 1945, and travel to Rome, where on 
February 21, 1946, he received the cardinal’s hat from 
Pope Pius XII. When he came back to Hungary, Soviet 
troops were still in the country, and religious and political 
conditions were as bad as ever. That fall, the local state 
security service arrested a group of “conspirators” against 
the communist government. They were tried the following 
March. The leaders were condemned to death, the others 
to long prison terms. On October 24, 1947, Mindszenty 
protested vigorously to the premier. 

In May 1948, the communist authorities had no 
trouble subduing the Hungarian Reformed Church, by the 
simple expedient of removing the heads of the Church 
and replacing them with others who were willing to go 
along with the new regime. The Catholic bishops could 
not so easily be replaced, since they were appointed by 
the pope. 

Mindszenty continued to protest, as Church schools 
were closed and religious orders banned by the 
communist government. Schoolchildren and factory 
workers were ordered into the streets to demonstrate 

against him, proclaiming: “We will annihilate 
Mindszentyism! The well-being of the Hungarian people 
and peace between Church and state depend on it.”^^ 

On the morning of November 19, 1948, the police 
arrested Mindszenty’s secretary. Dr. Andras Zakar, as he 
was about to enter the archiepiscopal palace in Esztergom 
and carted him off to the notorious No. 60 Andrassy 
Street, state security headquarters in Budapest. 
Mindszenty realized that he himself would soon be 
arrested. On December 16, he convened a final 
conference of bishops at the palace. As the bishops left, 
the police blocked the road, searched each car, and had 
each passenger identify himself — evidently in the 
suspicion that the primate would try to escape with the 

Stalin undoubtedly wanted Mindszenty arrested, 
framed, and “neutralized” — not necessarily killed, 
because that would make international waves, but 
removed from the scene for life, perhaps so physically 
mistreated and mentally addled that he would never again 
be able to challenge the communist rulers. Since the war, 
the Soviets’ tried-and-true method had been wherever 
possible to slander their enemies as having been pro-Nazi. 
The Hungarian primate, however, was widely known as 
having used his Church to protect Jews, as having 
publicly denounced the Nazis over and over again, and as 
having been imprisoned by the Nazis’ Hungarian allies. 

the Arrow Cross. Some other plausible peg would have to 
be found for the framing. 

When the Soviet state security officers and their 
surrogates in the satellite countries of Eastern Europe 
were ordered to frame someone — that is, to change his 
past and the way the public perceived him — the first thing 
they did was to collect as much information as possible on 
the target: where he had traveled, who his contacts were, 
what kind of letters and documents he had written, 
especially those providing samples of his handwriting and 
signature. Accordingly, on December 23, 1948, squads 
of policemen forced their way into Mindszenty’s 
archiepiscopal palace and meticulously rummaged 
through every room, especially the archives, alleging the 
search was in connection with the case of Dr. Zakar, the 
secretary being held under arrest. During the search, 
Mindszenty, his visiting mother, and three local priests 
were locked in a small dining room. When the police 
were finished, they asked him to sign a record of the 
search. He refused, but took the occasion to protest the 
arrest of two priests of the archdiocese. 

After the search, the chief of the secretariat. Dr. Gyula 
Matrai, told Mindszenty that his secretary. Dr. Zakar, had 
come to the palace with the police and had shown them 
around. According to Matrai, Zakar had acted oddly, 
running down the halls, laughing constantly, and with a 
strange look on his face and in his eyes. The primate 

could only suppose that he must have been beaten and 
drugged into submission and cooperation. Matrai also 
reported that in the archives the police had shown 
particular interest in a collection of metal cylinders. These 
were of various lengths and diameters and were used to 
safeguard valuable archdiocesan papers, such as property 
deeds and blueprints, and to protect them from dust and 
decay. The police took one empty cylinder with them. 
Later, at the trial, they would allege that Zakar had 
revealed its special hiding place to them, and they would 
produce its supposedly incriminating contents. 

On the night of December 26, 1948, a large police 
squadron noisily drove up to the palace. Colonel Decs! of 
the security police, followed by eight or ten of his men, 
burst into Mindszenty’s apartment, found him kneeling in 
prayer, and ordered him to come with them. When he 
asked to see a warrant for his arrest, one policeman 
scoffed that they did not need one, bragging that they 
could find traitors, spies, and currency smugglers even 
when they wore a cardinal’s robes. 

For the next thirty-nine days, Mindszenty was 
imprisoned and interrogated at 60 Andrassy Street. There 
the guards — laughing loudly, telling dirty jokes, and 
smoking in his unventilated room — stripped him of his 
clothing and gave him only what he called a harlequin 
“clown suit” to wear. Every day the colonel interrogated 
him and insisted he sign “confessions,” which he refused 
to do. Every night, a major would beat his naked body 

with a rubber truncheon until he collapsed, but the guards 
prodded him so that he could not even sleep. They also 
urged him to eat, claiming they would order whatever he 
wanted from a restaurant. Knowing that prisoners were 
usually drugged, he at first refused all food, but then in 
his starved state he succumbed to consuming a little bread 
or clear broth. A team of three silent doctors examined 
him before every meal and left pills for him to take. He 
tried to crush the pills into the uneaten food, or make 
them stick to the roof of his mouth and later hide the 
crumbs in his shoe. After two weeks, he grew weaker 
(and, as he later realized, probably did get blurry-minded 
from drugs present even in the clear broth), and he agreed 
to sign the minutes of his previous interrogations, 
although he was later sure he had never signed any 
“confession of guilt in the sense of an indictment.” 

From the beginning. Colonel Decs! told the archbishop 
exactly what confessions were required from him. The 
charges boiled down to Mindszenty’s allegedly 
treasonous contacts with the American Embassy in 
Budapest and with Otto von Hapsburg, in connection with 
a plot to stir up a Third World War. Supposedly 
Mindszenty had orchestrated the theft of Hungary’s 
crown jewels, and he planned to overthrow the 
communist government, draw up a cabinet for the future 
kingdom of Hungary, and then bring the ancient Crown of 
Saint Stephen to Budapest in order to crown Otto von 
Hapsburg as king. 

This may sound like the plot for an overblown 
historical novel, but it is what the Hungarian security 
police came up with after digging through all those files 
they had collected from the palace archives — not to forget 
that metal cylinder, which would become a tangible 
exhibit at Mindszenty’s trial. 

The Soviet disinformation experts always said a good 
framing operation had to be built up around a “kernel of 
truth,” and here it was. The security police knew that 
Mindszenty had met with Otto von Hapsburg in the 
United States in the summer of 1947. In fact, the cardinal 
had attended a Marian Congress in Ottawa that year, and 
he agreed to meet afterwards with the Hapsburg heir, at 
the latter’s request, in Chicago. Mindszenty asked him for 
help in obtaining and transporting charitable gifts from 
Americans to the Hungarian Church. In that same 
connection he had also been in touch with Cardinal 
Spellman, the archbishop of New York, and with the 
American Embassy in Budapest. Mindszenty had also 
written many letters — obviously now in the hands of the 
police — expressing his wish that the Holy Crown be 
returned for safekeeping to Rome and entrusted to the 
care of Pius XII, during the current “difficult period of 
tribulations and vicissitudes.” 

On the evening of February 2, 1949, Mindszenty was 
dressed in a new black suit and escorted to the building of 
the Budapest People’s Court by a large detachment of 
police, headed by Colonel Decs! and Lt. Gen. Gabor 

Peter, an undercover Soviet security police officer who 
was the chief of Hungary’s A VO. The next morning a 
barber came to make the cardinal presentable. He put on 
his black suit again and set out for the courtroom, 
accompanied by six other “conspirators.” Later, four were 
treated as irrelevant, and only three were allegedly in on 
the conspiracy: the cardinal-primate, his secretary, and “a 
monk whose health had been shattered.” 

The show trial was conducted from February 3-8, 
1949. Mindszenty reportedly confessed to the crimes he 
was accused of, agreeing that he had written the letters 
supposedly found in the cylinder that discussed plotting to 
overthrow the government. In his book, he wrote that he 
was so physically and mentally exhausted that he scarcely 
knew what he was saying. All the defendants were found 
guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 

On February 12, 1949, Pope Pius XII condemned the 
jailing of the cardinal and excommunicated everyone 
involved in his trial and conviction. 

On February 6, before the trial was even over, 
handwriting experts Lazio and Hanna Sulner escaped to 
Austria and began telling their story to the press. They 
denounced the trial as a farce, displaying microfilms of 
the fabricated documents they had produced for the 
Hungarian security police in order to frame Mindszenty. 
They attested that several months before the search of the 
archiepiscopal palace, they had been given copies of the 

documents allegedly found in the metal cylinder produced 
at the trial, with instructions to “edit” them. These 
actually were copies of letters and memoranda that the 
cardinal had ordered to be destroyed so as not to involve 
others after his anticipated arrest; a typist in the cardinal’s 
secretariat had been intimidated into providing the 
materials to the police. 

Even more interesting is the Sulners’ description of 
how they operated. Hanna’s father had been a pioneer in 
handwriting analysis and an authority on questionable 
documents. Hanna studied criminology and took over her 
father’s business after his death, later to be joined by 
Lazio, who became her husband. Hanna’s father had 
invented a device that took words and phrases from 
manuscripts and put them together as desired to form a 
new manuscript, and Lazio developed this technique to 
such perfection that even experts could not detect the 

The Sulners and their device came to the attention of 
the Hungarian secret police in September 1948, when 
they showed Lazio a list of cabinet members Mindszenty 
was allegedly going to appoint after the overthrow of the 
government. Lazio immediately dubbed it a forgery and 
produced a better list, which was later amended and used 
as evidence at the trial. 

On January 4, 1949, Lazio was asked to produce a 
confession by Mindszenty in accordance with the 

typewritten draft the police provided. The Sulners were 
also asked to forge other documents, signatures, and 
marginal notations for the case. When they did not work 
quickly enough for the police, they and their entire 
apparatus were moved to police headquarters. A steady 
flow of documents resulted, some of which were 
produced by ignorant, inexperienced police officers and 
resulted in what Mindszenty described as “outlandish 
form and spelling, such as my confession.” The Soviet 
security police would have immediately learned from 
their Hungarian counterpart about the Sulners’ virtually 
foolproof technique for fabricating documents. As a 
result, it is clear why disinformation and framing experts 
in any of the Soviet bloc intelligence services were 
insatiable in their efforts to collect as many original 
documents as possible on a target. 

At the time that I was involved in the Soviet operation 
against Pius XII that will be discussed later in this book, I 
could not understand why the Soviets kept asking him for 
more and more essentially uninteresting documents from 
Vatican files. It is now apparent that they were looking for 
a little “kernel of truth” of the Otto von Hapsburg kind, or 
they may have been seeking words and signatures that 
could be perfectly duplicated by the Sulner technique to 
produce an entirely different “original.” 

During the Hungarian uprising of 1956, Cardinal 
Mindszenty was set free, but his freedom lasted for only a 

short while. Soon the communists regained control of the 
government, and he sought asylum in the US Embassy in 
Budapest, where he lived for the next fifteen years. On 
September 23, 1971, under Vatican pressure, the 
government of Hungary allowed Mindszenty to leave the 
country. He moved to Vienna, but continued his primacy 
of the Hungarian Catholic Church until December 1973, 
when, at the age of eighty-two, he was replaced. He died 
in Vienna on May 6, 1975. In 1991, as soon as Hungarian 
communism collapsed, in accordance with his wishes, his 
remains were expatriated to Esztergom by the 
democratically elected government in Budapest. 

Mindszenty ’s life and his battle against the Kremlin’s 
framing were the subject of the 1950 film Guilty of 
Treason, which author and historian Steve O’Brien called 
“an extraordinary time capsule from the start of the Cold 
War,” that “illustrated how the Communists were out to 
besmirch the Vatican’s high churchmen.”^^ In 1955, a 
slightly fictionalized version of the Mindszenty case was 
the subject of another movie. The Prisoner, starring Alec 
Guinness. That film opened with the cardinal’s arrest and 
with his real statement that any reported confession 
would be “a lie or the result of human weaknesses. 

The Mindszenty Museum in Esztergom, which opened 
after communism collapsed, is another monument to 
Mindszenty ’s life and to the Kremlin’s criminal framing 
of him,^^ as is the Mindszenty Foundation in St. Louis, 




Cardinals mindszenty and stepinac were not Stalin’s 
only high-ranking Catholic victims outside of the 
inscrutable Soviet Union. Several other cardinals in 
Eastern Europe also suffered. Josef Cardinal Beran of 
Czechoslovakia was one of them. Arrested by the Gestapo 
on June 6, 1940, Beran, at that time a bishop, was 
imprisoned in Pankrac, Theresienstadt, and at the Dachau 
concentration camp. After the war, he was appointed 
archbishop of Prague and primate of the Church in 
Czechoslovakia. When the communists took over in 1948, 
Beran prohibited his clergy from taking an oath of loyalty 
to the new regime, calling it “treason to the Christian 
faith.” He also protested the new regime’s seizure of 
Church property and the infringement of religious liberty. 

In June 1949, the newly created Czechoslovakian 
political police arrested Beran and convicted him in a 
show trial. He was reimprisoned from 1949 to 1963. Even 
upon his release, Beran was impeded from exercising his 
episcopal ministry. He repeatedly offered his resignation 
to the pope, but it was always refused. In 1965, Beran 
moved to Rome in exchange for governmental 
concessions to the Church. Pope Paul VI made him a 
cardinal that same month. ^ 

Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski of Poland was another of 

the Kremlin’s victims.^ When the Second World War 

broke out in 1939, Wyszynski served as chaplain of a unit 

of the Armia Krajowa, a Polish anti-Nazi underground 
resistance organization. This caused him frequently to be 
a target for the Germans. After the war, Pius XII 
appointed him Bishop of Lublin. After the death of 

Cardinal Hlond in October 1948, Wyszynski was named 
metropolitan archbishop of Gniezno and Warsaw. 

The new communist government in Poland was hard 
on the Catholic Church. The conflict increased following 
Pope Pius XITs 1950-1955 decrees against communism 
(discussed further in the next chapter). The Kremlin and 
its Polish viceroys unleashed a new round of persecution 
against the Polish clergy. Numerous priests were arrested 
and accused of collaborating with “reactionary 
underground movements.”^ 

Wyszynski tried to reach a working agreement with 

the regime in 1950, but it did not hold. Pope Pius XII 
appointed him cardinal and primate of Poland on January 

12, 1953,^ but his persecution continued. Wyszynski was 
arrested on September 25, 1953. He was quickly 
imprisoned (eventually moving to house arrest).^ At the 
beginning of 1954, there were nine Catholic bishops and 
several hundred priests in Polish prisons.^ 

Wyszynski was incarcerated for a little over three 

years. In 1956, when the short-lived Hungarian 
Revolution was ignited, Poles organized street 
demonstrations demanding religious freedom and 

Wyszynski’s release.^ The Catholic clergy joined in the 

call for his freedom. On October 28, 1956, Wyszynski 

was set free, and he returned to his post. Within two 
years, however, the communist propaganda machine 
again went after him with enough personal attacks that his 
cause drew the attention of the Western media. ^ 

In 1966, Wyszynski oversaw the celebration of 

Poland’s Millennium of Christianity, the one thousandth 
anniversary of the baptism of Poland’s Prince Mieszko I. 
The communist authorities refused to allow Pope Paul VI 

to visit Poland. They also prevented Wyszynski from 
attending overseas celebrations. In the 1970s, however. 

Wyszynski gave his support to the growing Solidarity 

movement. Pope John Paul II was elected in 1978, and the 
communist officials could not prevent his papal trip. That 
1979 visit sparked a revolution that led to the eventual 
downfall of the Soviet bloc. 

Cardinal Wyszynski died on May 28, 1981, at age 

seventy-nine. To commemorate the twentieth anniversary 
of his death, the postcommunist Polish government 
celebrated 2001 as the Year of Stefan Cardinal 

Wyszynski, who also became known as the Primate of the 

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), which 
had been in communion with the Holy See since the 
Union of Brest in 1595-96, was in tension with the 
Russian Orthodox Church, especially after the 
communists took power. The conflict was largely 
overlooked during the Second World War, because the 
churches had the same negative opinion of the Nazis. 
Unfortunately, the conflict reemerged when the war came 
to an end. 

On April 11, 1945, the Ukrainian Catholic bishops 
were arrested, including Archbishop Josyf Slipyj. From 
1920 to 1922, Slipyj had studied at the Pontifical Oriental 
Institute in Rome and the Pontifical Gregorian University. 
In 1939, with the blessing of Pope Pius XII, Slipyj was 

ordained as the archbishop of Lviv. He became the head 
of the UGCC in 1944. Now, along with the other bishops, 
he was accused of collaboration with the Nazis and 
sentenced to forced labor in the Siberian Gulag. 

In response, Pius XII issued his encyclical Orientales 
Omnes of December 23, 1945. In it, the pope not only 
condemned communism; he openly and specifically 
attacked Moscow Patriarch Alexis. The situation got 
worse March 8-10, 1946, when Soviet authorities forcibly 
convened an assembly of 2 1 6 priests, and the so-called 
Synod of Lviv was held at which the Ukrainian Greek 
Catholic Church was forcibly “rejoined” to the Russian 
Orthodox Church and forced to revoke its union with 
Rome. The UGCC first became a “Church of Silence,” 
then a “Church of Martyrs,” as many Ukrainian Catholics 
who were interned by the communists were tortured 
and/or murdered. 

Archbishop Slipyj was the heart and soul of the 
underground Ukrainian Catholic Church, even though he 
was imprisoned in the Siberian Gulag. News of his 
courageous witness spread, especially after some of his 
prison writings were released into circulation. In 1957, 
Pius XII sent him a congratulatory letter on the fortieth 
anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, which of 
course the communist authorities confiscated. In light of it 
and of Slipyj ’s own writings, they cracked down even 
harder and added seven years to his sentence. 

Stalin’s death in 1953 did not make it easier on Slipyj 
or the UGCC. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was just 
as hard on religion as his predecessor had been. A 
fortunate combination of events, however, led to Slipyj ’s 

In October 1962, Pope John XXIII opened the Second 
Vatican Council, and with it a new approach toward the 
world (“aggiomamento”). This included searching new 
avenues to ease the suffering of Christians under 
communist rule, while at the same time being sure not to 
withdraw any of the Church’s warnings about Marxist- 
Leninist ideology. The new approach was described by 
Msgr. Igino Cardinale, chief of protocol at the Secretariat 
of the Holy See, as being “ready to engage in relations 
with any state,” as long as there was a reliable assurance 
that “freedom for the church and the sanctity of the moral 
and spiritual interests of its citizens” were respected. 

Just a few days after Vatican II opened, the Cuban 
Missile Crisis broke out. President Kennedy, a Catholic 
himself, sought help from the Vatican. He contacted the 
author Norman Cousins, who in turn contacted the Holy 
See. On October 24, 1962, John XXIII issued a dramatic 
appeal to the relevant leaders not to remain deaf to “the 
cry of humanity.” On October 28, Khrushchev told 
President Kennedy that the missiles would be withdrawn. 
Many historians believe Pope John’s public appeal 
provided Khrushchev with a face-saving way to change 
course, depicting himself as a savior of world peace. 

rather than an outfoxed aggressor who blinked. Kennedy 
thanked John XXIII for his help. 

Shortly after this, Cousins met with Khrushchev as an 
intermediary for the Holy See, to discuss world peace, 
religious freedom, and Archbishop Slipyj. By early 1963, 
the Soviets agreed to release Slipyj on the condition that 
he would remain in exile, and that his freedom would not 
be exploited by the Church for “anti- Soviet” purposes. 

The release was to be regarded as an amnesty, and Slipyj 
was still officially considered an enemy of the Soviet 
government. The Holy See agreed not to exploit the 
matter, but made no promises about restricting its 
admonitions against communism. 

On January 23, 1963, Slipyj was set free. He arrived in 
Rome in time to participate in the Second Vatican 
Council, but his freedom was complicated by the fact that 
Russian Orthodox observers had been invited to attend the 
council. Their presence deeply shocked the Ukrainian 
bishops who thought that the Holy See was conceding far 
too much to these accessories to the Soviet suppression of 
the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Holy See, 
however, believed that this approach accomplished 
ecumenical and political goals without compromising 
genuine principles. 

Slipyj had been secretly {in pectore) named a cardinal 
by Pope Pius XII in 1949, but in 1965 Pope Paul VI 
named him publicly. At that time he was the fourth 

cardinal in UGCC history. In 1969 Pope Paul VI created 
the new office of major archbishop, appointing Slipyj as 
its first incumbent. He died in Rome on September 7, 
1984. In 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union, his relics 
were returned to St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv. 



January 1951, three years after Cardinal Mindszenty was 
arrested, Stalin was riding high. Since the end of World 
War II he had dramatically expanded his empire through 
the skillful application of, alternately, the naked sword 
and the veiled hoax. He now had dominion over twenty- 
one countries — fifteen union republics and six European 
satellites. The borders of his real estate extended from the 
North Pole to the 35^^ parallel and enclosed twelve seas 
belonging to three oceans (Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific), 
27,000 lakes and 150,000 rivers with a total length of 2 
million miles. Counting the communist revolution in 
China that had been initiated and organized by Soviet 
advisers and was now about to succeed, the ruler in the 
Kremlin would oversee more than a third of the world’s 


Stalin believed the time was ripe to gather all of 
Germany under the communist umbrella. Germany was 
the cradle of Marxism — Karl Marx’s birthplace — and it 
was a matter of personal pride for Stalin to see it 
communist. In June 1948, he sealed off West Berlin, 
hoping to compel the Western Allies to surrender the 
entire city to the Soviet occupation forces. West Berlin 
was a tiny oasis in the Soviet-occupied part of Germany, 
and the Soviet ruler was sure that the small Allied military 
force controlling the Western sectors was no match for the 
surrounding armored units of the Red Army. Stalin 
miscalculated. Never in his wildest nightmares could he 
have anticipated that the United States would set up the 
Berlin Airlift in order to keep West Berlin alive. Nor 
could he have dreamed that his blockade would cause the 
birth of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
in April 1949, and one month later propel the three 
Western occupation forces to unite their zones into a new 
West German nation — thereby setting the stage for the 
eventual collapse of all German communism. On May 12, 
1949, Stalin admitted defeat and ended the Berlin 
blockade. Five months later he also relinquished his 
dream of bringing the whole of Germany into “our camp,” 
when he established an East German nation in that portion 
of the country occupied by the Red Army. 

Stalin was not a good loser. By mid- 1949 he was 
faced with a Western Europe firmly bonded to the United 

States, and he knew that the Soviet Union did not have the 
military strength to break up that unity by force. Realizing 
that his strong-arm methods would no longer work, Stalin 
turned his thoughts to an old Russian weapon of the 
emotions that had so successfully been wielded by him 
and all the tsars before him: anti-Semitism. He was 
convinced that the hatred for Jews had deep roots in 
Europe, and he wanted to turn that hatred against his new 
enemy. Thus, Stalin decided to portray the United States 
as a Zionist realm owned by Jewish money and run by a 
greedy “Council of the Elders of Zion” (Stalin’s derisive 
epithet for the US Congress), whose militaristic sharks 
wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish 
fiefdom. At that time. Western Europe was grateful to the 
United States for restoring its freedom and economic 
prosperity. Stalin, however, was convinced that could be 
changed by exploiting Europe’s historical anti-Semitism 
and fear of a new war. 

Having thus set the strategy, Stalin started the action. 
He appointed, as the Soviet Union’s minister of foreign 
affairs, an expert in manipulating religion: Andrey 
Vyshinsky, the undercover intelligence officer who had 
long managed Stalin’s war against the Catholic Church. 
Next, Stalin sent, as Soviet ambassador to Washington, 
another undercover intelligence officer who specialized in 
manipulating religion: Aleksandr Panyushkin. (In 1953, 
Panyushkin would become chief of the entire Soviet 
foreign intelligence service, the PGU — Pervoye Glavnoye 

Upravleniye, First Chief Directorate of the KGB — a 
position he would hold until 1956.) 

Vyshinsky’s main task was to unify the Soviet 
Union’s diplomatic and intelligence machineries, and to 
use them for creating a strong West European aversion for 
American Zionism and its militaristic sharks, so as to 
eventually force the American “occupation” troops out of 
the Old World continent. Once that was accomplished, 
Vyshinsky would use the same intelligence and 
diplomatic apparatus to help Western Europe “decide its 
own fate.” Italy and France, which had the largest 
communist parties in Western Europe, would become 
“people’s republics” by parliamentary means. ^ Greece, 
the only noncommunist country in the Balkans by then, 
needed only a “spark” to explode.^ Twice, in 1944 and 
1947, the Greek communists had succeeded in setting up 
their own governments in Greece, and without any 
American troops in Europe they would be able to do it 
again. Spain might also change soon, as the “hated 
dictator,” Francisco Franco, who had crushed the Soviet- 
sponsored Spanish Civil War, seemed to be losing his grip 
on that nation. The hope was that La Pasionaria (Dolores 
Ibarruri, the honorary chairperson of the Spanish 
Communist Party), who had been living in Moscow since 
the end of the Civil War, would set that country on fire 
again. A “free” Spain would then help “liberate” Portugal 
as well. 

Panyushkin’s main task was to persuade America’s 
leftists to create peace movements in the United States. 
Demonstrating for peace to promote war was nothing 
new. Before World War II there had been scores of peace 
demonstrations in the United States that were fueled by 
Nazi sympathizers — they did not want to stop Hitler from 
conquering Europe, they wanted to stop Washington from 
going to war against Hitler. 

The Cold War was bom. Stalin called it World War 
III, as I learned in January 1951 when I joined that war as 
a young officer of the far-flung Soviet bloc intelligence 
machinery. General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who in 1949 
created Romania’s political police, the Securitate, and was 
now its chief Soviet adviser and its de facto boss, 
explained to his Romanian subordinates that World War 
II was not directed against the American people. It was 
directed against America’s “Zionist bourgeoisie” and its 
militaristic sharks, who wanted to ignite a new world war 
in order to sell their weapons. The socialist camp would 
eventually seize all the American arms factories from the 
hands of the Zionist bourgeoisie so America’s proletariat 
could build cars to supply the rest of the world. 

That was heady stuff. Most Romanians had never 
heard of Zionism, but they all dreamed about owning a 
car. I also had no idea what Zionism meant, but I could 
feel the monkey being dropped onto my back. I was a 
young engineer being told that I had an important job to 
do for my country, and of course I was ready to serve. At 

the time, the Securitate work schedule was between 7:30 
in the morning and 10:00 in the evening, but young 
officers seldom left for home before midnight — and that 
was seven days a week. They really had no time to think 
for themselves, nor were they supposed to. Young officers 
just went along with the tide, and that is what I did — for a 

According to Sakharovsky, World War III was 
conceived to be a war without weapons — a war the Soviet 
bloc would win without firing a single bullet. It was a war 
of ideas. It was an intelligence war, waged with a 
powerful new weapon called dezinformatsiya. Its task was 
to spread credible derogatory information in such a way 
that the slander would convince others that the targets 
were truly evil. To ensure the credibility of the lies, two 
things were required. First, the fabrications had to appear 
to come from respected and reputable Western sources; 
and second, there had to be what Sakharovsky called “a 
kernel of truth” behind the allegations, so that at least 
some part of the story could be definitively verified — and 
to ensure that the calumny would never be put to rest. In 
addition, the originator had to do his best to ensure that 
the story got plenty of publicity, if necessary, by having 
agents or leftist sympathizers in the West publish articles 
putting the desired spin on the alleged information. 

The Securitate’ s first major dezinformatsiya task in the 
new World War III was to help Moscow reignite anti- 
Semitism in Western Europe by spreading thousands of 

copies of an old Russian forgery, The Protocols of the 
Elders of Zion, in that part of the world. It had to be done 
secretly, so no one would know that the publications came 
from the Soviet bloc. 

The Protocols, which claimed that the Jews were 
plotting to take over the world, was a Russian forgery, 
compiled by a disinformation expert, Petr Ivanovich 
Rachovsky, who worked for the Okhrana (Department for 
Protecting the Public Security and Order) in the days of 
the tsar. Rachovsky was assigned to France at the time of 
the 1 897 Zionist Congress, and he had been inspired by 
the enormous wave of anti-Semitism whipped up by the 
Dreyfus Affair.^ 

Rachovsky lifted most of his text directly from an 
obscure, 1864 French satire called Dialogue aux Enfers 
entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (“Dialogue in Hell 
Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”) written by 
Maurice Joly and accusing Emperor Napoleon III of 
plotting to seize all the powers of French society. The 
Okhrana officer essentially substituted the words the 
world for France and the Jews for Napoleon III. During 
the Russian Revolution of 1905, the Okhrana republished 
its forgery in Paris under the name of a mystic Russian 
priest, Sergius Nilus, as part of an antirevolutionary 
propaganda campaign. 

“Here is the future of the world,” Sakharovsky told the 
management of the Securitate in 1951, when he brought a 

copy of the Nilus edition to Bucharest and ordered it to be 
translated, multiplied and surreptitiously disseminated 
around Western Europe. In 1978, when I broke with 
communism, the Securitate was spreading the Protocols 
around in the Middle East as well. 

In 1957, when I was chief of the DIE station in West 
Germany, the same Sakharovsky, now head of the whole 
Soviet foreign intelligence service, launched another 
dezinformatsiya operation focused on reigniting anti- 
Semitism in West Germany, which at that time was the 
European epicenter of NATO. “Zarathustra” was the 
KGB code name for this operation, to symbolize that 
German anti-Semitism was as immortal as Friedrich 
Nietzsche’s aphoristic hook Also Sprach Zarathustra 
(“Thus Spake Zarathustra”). 

Operation “Zarathustra” was designed to portray 
Germany as the breeding ground for a new wave of anti- 
Semitism that was spreading throughout Western Europe. 
One of the main players in the “Zarathustra” operation 
was the foreign component of the East German Stasi 
{Stasi was the popular nickname for the Minis terium fur 
Staatssicherheit, Ministry for State Security, including for 
its foreign intelligence arm, the Hauptverwaltung 
Aufkldrung, HVA, or Main Intelligence Directorate). My 
DIE was also assigned to this task, because Romania had 
a large ethnic German minority that could be pressed into 
service. Around Christmas 1959, numerous synagogues 
and Jewish memorials were simultaneously desecrated in 

West Germany. This alleged recrudescence of anti- 
Semitism was created by Soviet bloc illegal officers, most 
of whom had been supplied by the East German HVA and 
the Romanian DIE. 

Former KGB Colonel Oleg Gordlevsky, who 
collaborated with the British intelligence service for many 
years before defecting to Great Britain, revealed that the 
KGB had first tested this operation in the Soviet Union. In 
the second half of 1959, the KGB dispatched illegal 
officers to a village near Moscow, where they vandalized 
a Jewish cemetery and successfully shifted the blame. 
Soon after that, the KGB repeated this operation in West 
Germany,^ and a couple of months later in France, which 
had Europe’s largest Jewish community.^ 

The new anti-Semitism revived by the “Zarathustra” 
operation appears not only to have been spread 
throughout Western Europe, as the Kremlin intended, but 
also kept alive over the years. This streak of European 
anti-Semitism intensified after March 29, 2002, when 
Israel began its military campaign against Palestinian 
terrorists, and it reached a peak a month later, when 
various Nazi and neo-Nazi factions celebrated the 1 13^^ 
anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s birthday on April 20. A 
synagogue in Marseilles, France was doused in gasoline 
and burned to the ground, and one in Lyon was damaged 
in a car attack; a third was firebombed in Germany, and 
another was desecrated in Belgium. In Kiev, Ukraine, 

fifty youths chanting, “Kill the Jews” attacked a 
synagogue and then beat up a rabbi. In Britain, which 
takes pride in having a “multicultural” society, police 
logged at least fifteen anti-Jewish episodes in the month 
of April 2002 alone, prompting Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s 
chief rabbi, to say that anti-Semitism was on the rise in 
Europe as a whole. ^ 

Totalitarianism always requires a tangible enemy. The 
Jews, who for centuries had not been protected by the 
power of a state, proved a convenient enemy for both 
Nazism and communism. Nowadays the general 
perception is that Nazi Germany was the cradle of anti- 
Semitism — and it is not easy to change that perception. 
Nevertheless, before the words Nazi Holocaust were on 
everyone’s tongue, we had the Russian word pogrom, 
meaning massacre.^ To the ancient Greeks, a holocaust 
was simply a burnt sacrifice. It was not until the 1930s 
that the German Nazis invented the Jewish Holocaust. 
Long before that, however, the Russian tsars had their 
Jewish pogroms. The 1939 edition of an authoritative 
Russian dictionary defines pogrom: 

The government-organized mass slaughter of some element 
of the population as a group, sueh as the Jewish pogroms in 

tsarist Russia.^ 

Russia’s first major pogrom against the Jews took 
place on April 15, 1881, in the Ukrainian town of 
Yelisavetgrad. Russia’s administration and army were 
experiencing gross corruption with associated difficulties, 
and emissaries from St. Petersburg called for the people’s 
wrath to be vented on the Jews. The impoverished 
peasants obliged. 

A month later. Tsar Alexander II was assassinated by 
a band of nihilists. His successor, Alexander III, decided 
to save Russia from anarchical disorder by transforming it 
into a nation containing only one nationality, one 
language, one religion, and one form of administration. 
The new tsar began his policy by instigating more 
pogroms. A wave of killings, rapes, and the pillaging of 
Jews spread quickly to hundreds of other towns, reached 
Warsaw, and moved on to the rest of the Russian empire. 

Tsarist authorities held the victims responsible for the 
violence. In an 1881 memorandum to Tsar Alexander III, 
the chief of his political police. Count Nikolay Ignatyev, 
blamed the pogroms on “the Jews’ injurious activities” 
directed against the peasantry. A tsarist investigative 
commission concluded: “The passion for acquisition and 
money-grabbing is inherent in the Jew from the day of his 
birth; it is characteristic of the Semitic race, manifest from 
almost the first page of the Bible. 

These anti-Semitic ideas were soon embodied in the 
previously mentioned Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 

forged by Tsar Alexander Ill’s political police, the 
Okhrana. This forgery has proved to be the most 
resilient piece of disinformation in history. In 1921, the 
Times of London published a devastating exposure of the 
forgery by printing extracts from the Protocols side by 
side with the passages from the Joly book that had been 
plagiarized.^^ That did not stop the Protocols from 
becoming the basis for much of Hitler’s anti-Semitic 
philosophy as expressed in Mein Kampf In fact, Nazi 
Germany later translated the Protocols into many 
languages and flooded the world with them, to allege that 
there was an old “Jewish conspiracy” aimed at world 
domination, and to demonstrate that the persecution of 
Jews was a necessary self-defense for Germany. In the 
early years of the twenty- first century, the Protocols was 
filmed and broadcast on various Islamic television 
networks. Electronic versions can still be found on the 

In April 1903, another major pogrom took place in 
Kishinev, then the capital of the Bessarabia province of 
the Russian empire. The pogrom started after a boy, 
Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town of 
Dubossary, about twenty- five miles north of Kishinev. 
Although it was clear that the boy had been murdered by 
a relative (who was later found), the Russian media 
insinuated that he was murdered by the Jews. The pogrom 
spanned three days. The New York Times described it as 


The anti-Jewish riots in Kishinev, Bessarabia, are worse 
than the eensor will permit to publish. There was a well 
laid-out plan for the general massaere of Jews on the day 
following the Russian Easter. The mob was led by priests, 
and the general ery, “Kill the Jews,” was taken up all over 
the eity. The Jews were taken wholly unaware and were 
slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120 and the 
injured about 500. The seenes of horror attending this 
massaere are beyond deseription. Babes were literally tom 
to pieees by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob. The loeal 
poliee made no attempt to eheek the reign of terror. At 
sunset the streets were piled with eorpses and wounded. 

Those who eould make their eseape fled in terror, and the 

eity is now praetieally deserted of Jews.^^ 

A second Kishinev pogrom took place on October 19- 
20, 1905. By the time it was over, nineteen Jews had been 
killed and fifty-six injured. A large proportion of Jewish 
families who have found security, prosperity, and 
happiness in the United States came here as a result of 
these early pogroms. 

The Soviet dictators, like the tsars before them, needed 
a tangible enemy. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the 
Bolshevik revolution, who surrounded himself with 
Marxist Jews, dropped the Kremlin’s traditional anti- 
Semitism and unleashed his wrath against the country’s 
aristocracy and wealthy landowners. In 1918, a periodical 
of Lenin’s Cheka cdi\\Q& Krasnyy Terror {Red Terror) ran 

an article by Martyn lanovich Latsis, one of 
Dzerzhinsky’s deputies. He explained: 

We are not waging war against individuals. We are 
exterminating the bourgeoisie as a elass. . . . During 
investigation, do not look for evidenee that the aeeused 
aeted in word or deed against Soviet power. The first 
questions that you ought to put are: To what elass does he 
belong? What is his origin? What is his edueation and 
profession? And it is these questions that ought to 
determine the fate of the aeeused. In this lies the 

signifieanee of the Red Terror. 

Stalin, who grew up in the far reaches of Georgia, 
where the Jews had been serfs (until 1871, when serfdom 
was abolished there), transformed his Georgian anti- 
Semitism into a national and international policy. Fearing 
the competing communists who had fought for Lenin’s 
revolution, Stalin framed a few of them as agents of 
Zionist espionage and made the others look guilty by 

When Stalin wanted to get rid of his main rival, Leon 
Trotsky (ne Lev Davidovich Bronstein), his political 
police framed Trotsky as a Jewish spy of American 
Zionism and had him expelled from the country. That 
insinuation later allowed Stalin to have Trotsky 
barbarically killed with an ice axe in Mexico City by a 
Soviet illegal officer (Ramon Mercader) without causing 
most of Russia even to blink. Once again, the Jews were 

the country’s enemies. 

The first chairman of the Comintern/^ Grigory 
Zinovyev, who was also bom into a bourgeois Jewish 
family, was framed as head of a “Terrorist Center for the 
Assassination of the Leaders of the Soviet Government 
and CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union],” 
which was supposedly financed by America’s Zionism. 
He was shot on August 21, 1936. The man named by 
Lenin in his testament as the most capable of the younger 
generation, Georgy Pyatakov, was also framed as having 
been involved in an invented Zionist conspiracy and was 

Out of the seven members of Lenin’s Politburo at the 
time of the October Revolution, only Stalin was still alive 
when the massacre was over. The rest were framed as 
Zionist spies and executed. Stalin hated competition. 

After the state of Israel was constituted in 1948, the 
Soviet Union became one of the first countries to 
recognize it. As told to me by Generals Sakharovsky and 
Panteleymon Bondarenko (aka Pantyusha), Stalin did that 
because he hoped to fill Israel with Russian Jews 
recmited as Soviet spies and tasked to transform that 
country into a springboard from which to launch a Soviet 
expansion into the Middle East. 

In 1948, however, Golda Meir was appointed Israel’s 
minister plenipotentiary to the Soviet Union. There she 
was enthusiastically greeted by tens of thousands of 

Russian Jews. Therefore, Stalin’s political police, at that 
time called the MGB (Minis terstvo Gosudarstvennoy 
Bezopasnosti, or Ministry of State Security), organized a 
two-month total mail intercept throughout Russia. The 
results were presented to Stalin in December 1948, in the 
form of a report showing that an impressive number of 
Russian Jews had started promoting the idea of 
emigration to the newly created state of Israel. 

Fearing that such mass requests would tarnish the 
image of the “workers’ paradise” he was trying to project, 
Stalin quickly reacted. He dissolved the Jewish Anti- 
Fascist Committee created during the war; closed the 
Jewish schools, theaters, and synagogues; and arrested the 
most prominent Russian Jewish intellectuals. 

Even the wife of Vyacheslav Molotov, Stalin’s 
strongest political supporter and his prime minister since 
1930, was exiled to Siberia for the sole reason that she 
was a Jew. Once that was done, Stalin unleashed a violent 
public campaign calling for the execution of “Jewish 
speculators.” When Israel started developing strong ties 
with the United States, Stalin moved his anti-Semitism 
abroad. He labeled Zionism as the main tool used by the 
United States to undermine the “socialist camp,” and he 
committed unlimited Soviet political, military, and 
financial support to Israel’s historical enemies, its 
neighboring Arab states. 

The following year, to maintain his position as boss 

over the new Communist Party stars beginning to shine in 
Eastern Europe, Stalin framed a few of them as tools of 
Zionist espionage services. In 1949, he framed the 
communist leaders of Hungary, Laszlo Rajk and Gy orgy 
Palfy, as Zionist spies and had them hanged. After that, 
Stalin’s political police organized a monstrous show trial 
in Prague, at which the head of the Communist Party, 
Rudolf Slansky, and ten other Czech leaders, most of 
them Jews, were framed as Zionist spies and hanged. 

Then Stalin asserted that those countries were on the 
verge of falling into Zionist clutches, so he had a few 
million people, mostly Jews, expelled from their 
communist parties, allegedly to preserve the “purity of 
Eastern European Socialism.” 



In MARCH 1946, Winston Churchill, speaking at 
Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, said: “From 
Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron 
Curtain has descended across the Continent.”^ Shortly 
thereafter. President Harry Truman elevated the US 
delegation to the Vatican to the rank of embassy, named 
Myron Taylor as ambassador, and asked Pope Pius XII 
for help to stop the Soviet expansion. 

Truman reasoned that communism was the mortal 
enemy of religion — of all religions — and he believed its 
expansion could be stopped only “through a concerted 
religious effort” that would place the superiority and 

strength of what he called “truth and freedom” before the 
peoples of the world.^ Truman also believed that the 
Roman Catholic Church would be his strongest ally in 
this moral battle. 

As he had cooperated with the United States in 
opposing the Nazis, Pius obliged. 

In his book The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XI 
Peter C. Kent, a professor of history at the University of 
New Brunswick, documents how Pius XII openly 
engaged the Vatican on the side of the United States. In 
July 1949, the Holy Office issued a decree stating that 
“the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti- 
Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly 
those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso 
facto excommunication.”"^ This was so because: 

Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian: although 
the Communist leaders sometimes declare in words that 
they do not attack religion, in fact they show that they do 
by their doctrine and by their acts, which are hostile to 
God, to the true religion and to the Church of Christ. 

Therefore it is forbidden to register as a member of a 

Communist party or favor it in any way.^ 

Pius XIFs Sanctum Officium made it clear that the 
Vatican was indeed at war with communism, and he 
issued a series of decrees condemning the Kremlin’s 
crusade against the Catholic Church, including: Decree on 
usurpation of Church functions by the state, on June 29, 

1950; Decree on illegitimate state-ordered ordinations of 
bishops, on April 9, 1951;^ and Decree on publications 
favoring totalitarianism and communism, on June 26 and 
July 22, 19557 

The Kremlin labeled Pius “the Cold-War pope.”^ 

Thus, Soviet leaders instructed M. M. Scheinmann, a 
researcher at the Historical Institute of the Soviet 
Academy of Sciences in Moscow, to produce a report 
alleging a Vatican-Nazi conspiracy against the Soviet 
Union7 Scheinmann’ s report contained invented details 
about an alleged “Secret Pact” the Vatican had signed 
with Hitler7^ Republished in 1954 in German as Der 
Vatican im Zweiten Weltkrieg, that phony report became a 
dezinformatsiya tool, but it attracted little attention from a 
generation that had seen with its own eyes how 
vigorously Pius XII had fought Nazism. 

In 1950, President Truman approved one of the most 
important US government documents of that time: 
National Council Report 68, or NSC 68. This was a fifty- 
eight page top-secret report of the US National Security 
Council (declassified in 1975), which set forth the 
strategy of containment and became a significant weapon 
in the Cold War. By 1950, the Soviet Union had 
detonated an atomic bomb, installed a communist 
government in China, and expanded its reign over a third 
of the world. The NSC report described the challenges 
facing the United States in cataclysmic terms. “The issues 

that face us are momentous,” the document stated, 
“involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this 
Republic but of civilization itself 

NSC 68/1950, which was signed by President Truman 
on September 30, 1950, contained a two-pronged political 
strategy aimed at taking the moral high-ground in the new 
East- West conflict. A few weeks after it was signed, 
Truman launched his “Campaign of Truth,” which he 
defined as “a struggle, above all else, for the minds of 
men.” Truman argued that the propaganda used by the 
“forces of imperialistic communism” could be overcome 
only by the “plain, simple, unvarnished truth.” The 
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio 
Liberation (soon to become Radio Liberty) became part of 
Truman’s containment offensive. He asked the Vatican 
to enroll in this effort to stop the communists and what he 
viewed as their elemental godlessness. 

Pius XII again obliged. At his request, the Holy See 
acquired a 988-acre area at Santa Maria di Galeria, some 
eleven miles north of Rome, for a new broadcasting 
center. In 1952 the Italian government granted the site 
extraterritorial status, and in 1957 the new radio center 
was put into operation. Soon after that, Vatican Radio was 
broadcasting in forty-seven languages. This tool, which 
had been used during World War II to help the resistance 
oppose the Nazis, now became a powerful 
anticommunist weapon. (Today it has more than two 

hundred journalists in sixty-one countries, and it produces 
some forty-two thousand hours of simultaneous 
broadcasting a day.)^^ 

The Vatican’s role as strong enemy of Nazism and a 
deadly enemy of communism is one of Pope Pius XII’s 
most important legacies. Vatican Radio was part of those 
efforts. Both Nazism and communism wanted to ensure 
that the people of the world had no other gods but those 
approved by the government. Pius XII’s endeavor to keep 
the faith in the one true God was an inspiration to his 
successors and played a significant role in helping the 
West win the Cold War. 

Unfortunately, those efforts put Pius XII and the 
Vatican at the top of the Kremlin’s enemies list. 



Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as the Soviet 
leader who exported communism to the American 
continent. In 1959 he was able to install the Castro 
brothers in Havana, and soon my foreign intelligence 
service became involved in helping Cuba’s new 
communist rulers to export revolution throughout South 
America. It did not work. Unlike Europe, the Latin 
America of those years had not yet been bitten by the 
Marxist bug. (In 1967, Castro’s pawn Che Guevara was 
executed in Bolivia, after failing to ignite a guerrilla war 
in that country.) 

In the 1950s and 1960s, most Latin Americans were 
poor, religious peasants who had accepted the status quo, 
and Khrushchev was confident they could be converted to 

communism through the judicious manipulation of 
religion. In 1968, the KGB was able to maneuver a group 
of leftist South American bishops into holding a 
conference in Medellin, Colombia. At the KGB’s request, 
my DIE provided logistical assistance to the organizers. 
The official task of the conference was to help eliminate 
poverty in Latin America. Its undeclared goal was to 
legitimize a KGB -created religious movement dubbed 
“liberation theology,” the secret task of which was to 
incite Latin America’s poor to rebel against the 
“institutionalized violence of poverty” generated by the 
United States.^ 

The KGB had a penchant for “liberation” movements. 
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the 
National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), and the 
National Liberation Army of Bolivia were just a few of 
the “liberation” movements born at the KGB. The 
Medellin Conference did indeed endorse liberation 
theology, and the delegates recommended it to the World 
Council of Churches (WCC) for official approval. The 
WCC, headquartered in Geneva and representing the 
Russian Orthodox Church and other smaller 
denominations throughout more than 120 countries, had 
already come under the control of Soviet foreign 
intelligence. It remains politically under the control of 
today’s Kremlin, through the many Orthodox priests who 
are prominent in the WCC and are at the same time 
Russian intelligence agents. Dissident Russian priest Gleb 

Yakunin, who was a member of the Russian Duma from 
1990 to 1995, and was briefly given official access to 
KGB archives, released a great deal of information in 
samizdat reports identifying the Orthodox priests who 
were agents and describing their influence on WCC 
matters.^ For example, in 1983 the KGB dispatched forty- 
seven agents to attend the WCC General Assembly in 
Vancouver, and the following year the KGB took credit 
for using its agents on the WCC selection committee to 
arrange for the right man to be elected WCC general 

World Council of Churches general secretary, Eugene 
Carson Blake — a former president of the National 
Council of Churches in the United States — endorsed 
liberation theology and made it part of the WCC agenda. 
In March 1970 and July 1971, the first South American 
Catholic congresses devoted to liberation theology took 
place in Bogota. 

Pope John Paul II, who had experienced communist 
treachery firsthand, denounced liberation theology at the 
January 1979 Conference of the Roman Catholic Bishops 
of South America (CELAM), held in Pueblo, Mexico: 
“This conception of Christ as a political figure, a 
revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not 
tally with the Church’s catechism.”"^ Within four hours, a 
twenty-page rebuttal of the pope’s speech carpeted the 
floor of the Conference. Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, the 

Conference’s organizer, explained that the rebuttal was 
the product of “some 80 Marxist liberationists from 
outside the Bishops’ Conference.”^ I recall that the 
Romanian DIE had earlier been congratulated by the 
KGB for having provided logistical support to such 

In 1985, the KGB-managed World Council of 
Churches elected its first general secretary who was an 
avowed Marxist: Emilio Castro. He had been exiled from 
Uruguay because of his political extremism, but he 
managed the WCC until 1992. Castro strongly promoted 
the KGB-created liberation theology, which is today 
putting down strong roots in Venezuela, Bolivia, 
Honduras, and Nicaragua. In those countries, the peasants 
have supported the efforts of Marxist dictators Hugo 
Chavez, Evo Morales, Manuel Zelaya (now exiled to 
Costa Rica), and Daniel Ortega to transform their 
countries into KGB -style police dictatorships. In 
September 2008, Venezuela and Bolivia booted out the 
US ambassadors during the same week and called for 
Russian military protection. 

Russian military ships and bombers are back in Cuba 
— for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 
— and also in Venezuela. Brazil, the world’s tenth largest 
economy, also moved into the Kremlin’s fold under its 
Marxist ruler, Lula da Silva. In 201 1, da Silva was 
succeeded by a former Marxist guerrilla, Dilma Rousseff. 

During that same year, the newly elected president of 
Peru, Ollanta Humala, rushed to Buenos Aires to seek 
inspiration from Brazil’s Marxist guerrilla president. With 
the addition of Argentina, whose current president, 
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, is also moving the 
country into the Marxist fold, the map of Latin America 
now looks mostly red. 

A few years ago a black version of liberation theology 
began growing in a few radical-leftist black churches in 
the United States. Black liberation theologians James 
Cone, Cornel West, and Dwight Hopkins have explicitly 
stated their preference for Marxism because Marxist 
thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class 
(whites) versus victim class (blacks), and it sees just one 
solution: the destruction of the enemy. James Cone 

Black theology will accept only the love of God which 
participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we 
need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which 
is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors 
here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is 

participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.^ 

The predominantly black Trinity United Church of 
Christ in Chicago is part of this new movement. Its pastor. 
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who in 2008 became religious 
adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator Barack 
Obama, became famous for screaming out “not God bless 

America, but God damn America!” Senator Obama’s 
presidential campaign apologized for Reverend Wright’s 
slip of the tongue. By June 2011, however, the same 
Reverend Wright was touring the United States to preach, 
in packed- full black churches, that “the state of Israel is 
an illegal, genocidal . . . place,” and that “to equate 
Judaism with the state of Israel is to equate Christianity 
with [rapper] Flavor Flav.”^ 

Obama, of course, was by then in the White House. 

In the 1960s, Che Guevara became a kind of icon for the 
liberation theology movement. At that time, the Kremlin’s 
popularity stood at an all-time low. The Soviets’ brutal 
suppression of the 1956 Hungarian uprising and their 
instigation of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis disgusted the 
world, and every Soviet bloc ruler tried to save face in his 
own way. Khrushchev replaced the “immutable” Marxist- 
Leninist theory of the world proletarian revolution with a 
policy of peaceful coexistence, while pretending to be an 

advocate for peace. Alexander Dubcek gambled on a 
“socialism with a human face,”and Gomulka on “let 
Poland be Poland.” Ceau§escu announced his 

“independence” from Moscow and portrayed himself as a 
“maverick” among communist leaders. 

Cuba’s Castro brothers, who feared any liberalization. 

decided it would be simpler just to plaster a romantic 
revolutionary fa9ade over their communism. They chose 
Che as their poster boy because he had already been 
executed in Bolivia — a US ally; after having 
unsuccessfully tried to ignite a guerrilla war, he could be 
portrayed as a martyr of American imperialism. The KGB 
immediately offered support. The Romanian DIE, which 
in those days enjoyed close relations with its Cuban 
counterpart, the DGI, was also ordered to lend a hand, and 
that placed me squarely in the picture.^ 

“Operation Che” was launched with the book 
Revolution in the Revolution, a primer for communist 
guerrilla insurrection, which praised Che to the skies. The 
author, French terrorist Regis Debray, was a highly 
regarded KGB agent.^ In 1970, the Castro brothers shifted 
Che’s sanctification into high gear. Alberto Korda, a 
Cuban intelligence officer working undercover as a 
photographer with the Cuban newspaper Revolucion, 
produced a romanticized picture of Che. That now- 
famous Che, with long, curly locks of hair, wearing a 
revolutionary beret with a star on it and looking straight 
into the viewer’s eyes, has since inundated the world. 

Che’s picture became the logo for Steven 
Soderbergh’s Spanish-language, four-hour epic movie 
Che launched in 2009, which portrays a sadistic killer 
who dedicated his life to bringing Latin America into the 
Kremlin’s fold as a “true revolutionary through the 

stations of his martyrdom.” 

Even the playwright given credit for writing the play 
that slandered Pope Pius XII, The Deputy, was enlisted 
for the effort to promote Che. Time magazine reported in 
October 1970: “At present, Che appears each evening in a 
new play. The Guerrillas, by German Playwright Rolf 
Hochhuth.” In the play, “a young New York Senator who 
is also leader of a Che- style US underground movement 
pleads with Guevara to abandon his Bolivian battle. Che 
refuses. ‘My death here — in a calculated sense — is the 
only possible victory,’ he says. ‘I must leave a sign.’”^^ 
Further advancing the KGB’s interests, the play also 
charged the United States with racial and political murder. 

The KGB was also instrumental in embellishing a 
diary Che kept during his student years and in 
transforming it into a propaganda book. Das Kapital 
Meets Easy Rider, later renamed The Motorcycle Diary. 
Today, Che is an icon of the liberation theology 
movement, and of black liberation theology. 

During the 2008 presidential election season. Fox’s 
Houston TV station aired video of volunteers in an 
Obama ‘08 campaign office in that city, the walls of 
which were adorned with a large picture of Che 
superimposed over a Cuban flag.^^ Obama had attended 
Reverend Wright’s black liberation theology church in 
Chicago for some twenty years. 

As Raul Castro once bragged to me, “Che is our 

greatest public success.” 



Nikita Khrushchev was an expert at changing people’s 
pasts in order to realize his own future. In fact, he rose to 
the Kremlin by changing the past of Lavrenty Beriya, his 
main rival for the Soviet throne. Khrushchev was 
enormously proud of that accomplishment. According to 
his own memoir, the framing of Beriya began during the 
June 26, 1953, meeting of the Presidium of the 
Communist Party. Khrushchev came to that meeting with 
a gun in his pocket, and he played the starring role in the 
drama from beginning to end: “I prodded [Premier 
Georgy] Malenkov with my foot and whispered: ‘Open 
the session, give me the floor.’ Malenkov went white; I 

saw he was incapable of opening his mouth. So I jumped 
up and said: ‘There is one item on the agenda: the anti- 
Party, divisive activity of imperialist agent Beriya.’”^ 
After Khrushchev had proposed that Beriya be released 
from all his party and government positions, “Malenkov 
was still in a state of panic. As I recall, he didn’t even put 
my motion to a vote. He pressed a secret button, which 
gave the signal to the generals who were waiting in the 
next room.” The generals immediately arrested Beriya 
and took him away.^ 

With Beriya securely locked up in a cell, Khrushchev 
easily managed to wrest the top governmental job away 
from his closest ally, Malenkov. 

My first personal encounter with Khrushchev’s 
practice of rewriting people’s pasts occurred on October 
26, 1959. On that day, Khrushchev landed in Bucharest 
for what would become known as his six-day vacation. 
Khrushchev had never before taken such a long vacation 
abroad, but his stay in Bucharest was not a vacation 
either. He was brought there by his new spy chief. 
General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who until recently had 
been the chief intelligence adviser for the Securitate, 
Romania’s equivalent of the Soviet security police. 
Sakharovsky wanted to introduce Khrushchev to the 
Romanian ruler, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, and get his 
help in a couple of German matters — Romania had the 
second-largest ethnic German minority group in the 

Soviet bloc. 

One of Sakharovsky’s projects was to seek Romanian 
cooperation in the smearing of Pius XII. The pope had 
died a few months earlier, and thus could no longer 
defend himself. Sakharovsky and Khrushchev wanted to 
pull off a kind of Beriya operation. They intended to 
change Pius’s past image from Jew-defender to Jew-hater 
so as to compromise the Vatican — the same way they had 
changed Beriya’s past from ferocious anti-imperialist to 
imperialist agent. Khrushchev and Sakharovsky naturally 
realized that they could not put the Vatican out of 
business, but they did hope that by representing its head 
as a Jew-hater they could ignite a war between the 
Catholics and the Jews that would distract both groups 
from making any serious attempt to condemn 
Khrushchev’s next planned move: a military blockade of 
West Berlin. 

I had just been recalled from my assignment in West 
Germany and appointed head of Romanian industrial 
espionage (the collection of scientific and technological 
intelligence), and was still considered Romania’s 
“German expert.” As such, I attended most of the 
discussions with Khrushchev and Sakharovsky. “Religion 
is the opiate of the people,” I heard Khrushchev say, 
quoting Marx’s famous dictum, “so let’s give them 

Changing the widely admired anti-Nazi Pius XII into a 

pro-Nazi pope would indeed be a monumental task, but 
Khrushchev and Sakharovsky had thought it through 
carefully. At that very moment, the KGB was creating the 
Christian Peace Conference (CPC), a new international 
religious organization headquartered in the Soviet- 
occupied city of Prague, whose secret task was to 
discredit both the Vatican and the world’s leading Jewish 
organizations. The Romanian foreign intelligence service, 
the DIE, would contribute to the CPC staff a small army 
of undercover intelligence officers and co-optees. The 
CPC would be subordinate to the World Peace Council 
(WPC), another Kremlin creation, also headquartered in 
Prague. The KGB was already funding the WPC, and my 
DIE also contributed to it. 

Khrushchev’s plans for taking over West Berlin never 
materialized. Overnight on August 13, 1961, he sealed off 
East Berlin with a barbed wire fence, which later became 
the infamous Berlin Wall, and he loudly proclaimed 
victory. His Christian Peace Conference, built upon an 
organization originally founded in Prague by the Czech 

political police, the StB {Stdtm bezpecnost), and headed 

by an StB agent (Prof Joseph Hromadka), became an 
influential KGB front. The Kremlin’s dezinformatsiya 
machinery introduced the CPC to the world as a global 
ecumenical organization concerned with the problems of 
peace. In reality, the Christian Peace Conference was 
tasked to help the KGB discredit the Vatican and its main 

political supporter, the United States, throughout the 
Christian world. 

The KGB appointed Metropolitan Nikodim of 
Leningrad (who worked for the KGB under the code 
name “Adamant”) as vice president and shadow manager 
of the CPC,^ and gave him an advance of $210,000 to 
start spreading the word around the Christian community 
that Pius XII had been a Jew-hater."^ 

Soon after Khrushchev left Bucharest, the chief of the 
KGB disinformation department. General Ivan Agayants, 
informed the management of the DIE that all employees 
of the Soviet patriarchate’s External Affairs Department 
and all religious servants involved in foreign religious 
work were now secretly either KGB civilian employees or 
agents.^ The Romanian Securitate and my DIE were 
tasked to ensure that those organizations had equal 
representation in the country’s religious affairs. 

In I960, Khrushchev’s KGB ordered its sister services 
in Eastern Europe to create a special desk tasked to 
counteract the Vatican’s “poison.” Another desk charged 
with producing intelligence officers able to act “under 
foreign flag” inside the Vatican was formed within the 
supersecret illegals department of the Romanian DIE — 
which I later supervised — and in other bloc foreign 
intelligence services.^ 

The intelligence structure needed to make the Vatican 
toothless by changing Pius’s past was already in place. 

The first thing to do was to have as many intelligence 
assets as possible start spreading the word all around the 
world that Pius had indeed been “Hitler’s Pope” — that 
simple, catchy epithet launched by Radio Moscow in 

The Soviet story line would be that before becoming 
pope, Pius XII had served as nuncio in Germany, where 
he caught the anti-Semitic virus and became a Nazi 
sympathizer. The truth was the exact opposite. In fact, 
while he was serving as nuncio in Germany, the future 
pope had frequently condemned racism, anti-Semitism, 
and excessive nationalism. As early as 1921, a newspaper 
article quoted him warning about a new and dangerous 
political movement that was a different perspective from 
the communists. In 1923, he reported to Rome that a 
militant group (“followers of Hitler and Ludendorff ’) 
were persecuting Catholics and Jews.^ He referred to this 
group (not yet known as Nazis) as “right-wing radicals.” 
The following year, on May 1 , in a handwritten draft 
report to Secretary of State Gasparri, the nuncio wrote: 
“Nazism is probably the most dangerous heresy of our 
time.”^ In another handwritten report dated three days 
later, he wrote: “The heresy of Nazism puts state and race 
above everything, above true religion, above the truth and 
above the justice.”^ 

It was not Pius XITs attitude toward the Nazis or the 
Jews that made him a target of this Soviet disinformation 

campaign. It was his attitude toward the Kremlin and its 
political police. Pius was the first pope to excommunicate 
communists, but John XXIII was proving just as 
obstinate. On April 13, 1959, he issued a decree 
reaffirming and strengthening the one released under Pius 
XII. John forbade Catholics from voting for communists 
or sanctioning them in any way. 

Khrushchev decided to retaliate against the Church by 
“excommunicating” a pope in his own way: by 
completely changing Pope Pius XIFs past. The saint 
would become a sinner. 



In FEBRUARY 1960, Khrushchev formally approved a joint 
Communist Party/KGB operational plan for destroying 
the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe. Since 
1945, the Kremlin had fought the Vatican indirectly by 
framing many of its priests and top clergymen in the 
Soviet Union and in its new territorial acquisitions 
“liberated” at the end of the war, slandering them either as 
Nazi war criminals or as enemies of peace. Now the 
Kremlin wanted the KGB to frame the Vatican on its 
home turf, using its own priests.^ Concocted by KGB 
chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and by Alexei Kirichenko, 
the Soviet Politburo member responsible for international 

policy, the new plan was constructed around Stalin’s 1945 
idea of portraying Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope.” 

The framing of Cardinals Mindszenty and Stepinac 
had fizzled out, in the end giving the Kremlin and its 
political police thugs a black eye. Both churchmen were 
framed by identifiably Soviet bloc intelligence tricks and 
propaganda, eventually damaging the Kremlin more than 
the Vatican. Moscow could no longer afford to apply such 
heavy-handed and obvious framing procedures. 

Therefore, Shelepin and Kirichenko decided that the 
framing of Pius XII should be based on a fictionalized 
scenario, supported by genuine, slightly modified Vatican 
documents (whether or not specifically related to Pius 
XII), the originals of which would never be released to 
the public. At that time there was an unflinching KGB 
rule for handling modified and counterfeited documents: 
they should be made available only in the form of retyped 
documents or in specially prepared photocopies, as even 
the most perfect counterfeit by today’s standards might 
become vulnerable to future detection techniques.^ 

The KGB knew what it had to do. It just needed a few 
Vatican documents to give the operation an aura of 
authenticity — a “kernel of truth.” Romania had a fairly 
large Roman Catholic community, so her people and 
foreign intelligence service, the DIE, were asked to help. 

General Sakharovsky, who until shortly before that 
had been the chief KGB adviser to the Romanian DIE and 

had just been appointed to head the Soviets’ entire foreign 
intelligence service (the PGU, or first chief directorate of 
the KGB),^ knew I was in an excellent position to contact 
the Vatican regarding approval to search its archives. The 
year before, as deputy chief of the Romanian Trade 
Mission in West Germany, I had negotiated a “spy swap” 
with the Holy See, involving four prominent Catholics 
who had been sentenced to long terms in prison on 
spurious charges of espionage at the end of a 1951 trial 
against the Vatican nunciature in Bucharest.^ The four 
had been exchanged for two DIE officers (Col. Constantin 
Horobet and Maj. Nicolae Ciuciulin) caught spying in 
West Germany.^ 

“Seat 12” was the code name for the Romanian side of 
the KGB’s operation against Pius XII. The name was an 
allusion to the pope as occupant of the seat of Saint Peter, 
and to Pius XII himself.^ 

In carrying out this mission against Pope Pius XII, I 
was introduced to an influential member of the Vatican’s 
diplomatic corps. His name was Agostino Casaroli. In 
fact, Casaroli was commonly called the Vatican’s “secret 
agent” in communist Europe, and he was known for 
dressing in civilian clothes to meet with communist 
officials.^ Pope John Paul II later named him cardinal and 
secretary of state for the Vatican. 

Romania’s relations with the Vatican had been 
severed in 1951, when Moscow staged a show trial 

framing the Vatican’s nunciature in Romania as being an 
undercover CIA front and closed its offices.^ The 
nunciature buildings in Bucharest had been turned over to 
the DIE, and they now housed a foreign language school. 

I had arranged a spy exchange the year before, but 
now the Soviet bloc needed a new cover story. It was 
decided that if Romania were to seek a loan from the 
Vatican, that would provide a possible explanation for 
why that nation was changing its position vis-a-vis the 
Holy See.^ I was instructed to tell Casaroli that Romania 
was ready to restore diplomatic relations with the Holy 
See in exchange for access to its archives and a $1 billion- 
dollar, interest-free loan.^^ I was also instructed to tell the 
Vatican that Romania needed access to the archives in 
order to find historical roots that would help the 
Romanian government publicly justify its change of heart 
toward the Holy See. Of course, this was simply a ploy. 

Ceau§escu had no intention of restoring diplomatic 
relations with the Holy See. 

The loan would, of course, have been welcome, but it 
was never a true aim. Moscow just wanted to open 
Vatican doors for a few DIE agents. Suggesting that 
Romania needed money provided a “cover” motivation 
for the proposal. The Vatican did agree to discuss the loan 
— although it was never made — and also agreed to what 
seemed a simple request: to allow three Romanian priests 
to do some research in Vatican archives. With that 

agreement, I had accomplished my part of the plan. 

As John Koehler explained in his book Spies in the 
Vatican: The Soviet Union 's Cold War against the 
Catholic Church, the Vatican was not exempt from the 
Kremlin’s efforts to infiltrate foreign governments. David 
Alvarez made the same point in his similarly titled book, 
Spies in the Vatican: Espionage & Intrigue from 
Napoleon to the Holocaust. Among the more notorious 
infiltrations, in 1952 Father Aligheri Tondi, a professor at 
the Gregorian Academy, was identified as a KGB agent. ^ ^ 
In 1963, Polish intelligence placed a cooperative bishop 
in the Vatican. 

For the Seat 12 assignment to Rome, the DIE chose 
three priests who were also co-opted agents. There they 
were given access to certain Vatican archives. It is worth 
noting at this point that the term “Vatican Secret 
Archives” is somewhat of a misnomer. It refers to the 
central repository for all of the acts promulgated by the 
Holy See. These archives contain the state papers, 
correspondence, papal account books, and many other 
documents that the church has accumulated over the 
centuries. The word “secref ’ in the title does not have the 
modem meaning; it simply indicates that the archives are 
the pope’s own, not those of a department of the Roman 
Curia. Since 1881 they have been open to outside 
researchers. Thus, the concession from the Vatican — 
permitting Romanian priests to enter these archives — was 

not really significant. It did, however, provide an air of 
authenticity, as British author John Cornwell would 
demonstrate decades later when he falsely claimed to 
have had special access to them.^^ 

The DIE agents secretly photographed some 
unimportant documents, and the DIE sent the films to the 
KGB via special courier. The documents were not 
incriminating; they were mainly things like press reports 
and transcripts of unclassified meetings and speeches, 
couched in the routine kind of diplomatic language one 
would expect to find in such material. Nevertheless, the 
KGB kept asking for more. Even if these documents did 
not actually provide any compromising information on 
Pius XII, the insinuation that his new image was based on 
“original Vatican documents” would dramatically 
improve the credibility of the whole framing operation. Of 
course, the KGB also hoped it might stumble across some 
obscure “kernel of truth” that could be used for 
dezinformatsiya purposes. 

At that time, I was managing Romania’s industrial 
espionage, and I had no reason or opportunity to know the 
true identity of the DIE agents sent to the Vatican to 
search its archives. Those agents were handled by the 
DIE’s Vatican desk. At the DIE, the identity of all 
intelligence agents used abroad was extremely well 
protected, known only to their handlers and to a handful 
of their superiors. Any indiscretion could indeed cause 

diplomatic nightmares. 

After my account of this operation was first published 
in 2007, historians and volunteer researchers started 
looking into the recently opened Securitate archives in 
Romania. So far, researchers have been able to identify by 
name only one of the three DIE agents: Fr. Francisc Iosif 

Pal had been recruited as a Securitate agent in 1950, 
when he was detained in the infamous Romanian prison 
of Gherla. His task was to inform on other Catholic 
priests who were also detained there. Among those he 
reported on were Fr. Godo Mihai, SJ, Fr. Chira, SJ, and 
Bishop Emil Riti (1926-2006).^^ Pal’s cooperation with 
the Securitate in organizing the 1951 trial against the 
Vatican nunciature in Bucharest was revealed in a 2008 
book published by William Totok, a Romanian-born 
German researcher. Pal’s involvement with the Vatican 
archives was first disclosed by Aurel Sergiu Marinescu in 
a study on the history of Romanian exiles. It was 
confirmed by Romanian researcher Remus Mircea 
Birtz.^^ It is still unknown whether Pal was sent to the 
Vatican using his own identity, or on a false passport — a 
practice frequently used by both the Securitate and the 

Nothing that Pal or the other DIE agents found in 
Vatican archives could be used as a basis for fabricating 
believable evidence that made Pius seem sympathetic to 

Hitler’s regime or unconcerned about the Jews.^^ Moscow 
expected that. The KGB just wanted to be able to claim 
that it had on hand original Vatican documents, so as to 
give the impression that its allegation that Pius XII was 
“Hitler’s Pope” was based on rock-solid evidence. 



On FEBRUARY 20, 1963, a play entitled Der Stellvertreter. 
Ein christliches Trauerspiel {The Deputy. A Christian 
Tragedy) premiered at the Theater am Kurfurstendamm in 
West Berlin, under the direction of Erwin Piscator of the 
Freie Volks biihne (Free People’s Theatre). The play 
focused on the allegation that Pope Pius XII had failed to 
take action, or even to speak out, against Hitler’s 
Holocaust. ^ 

The play’s author, Rolf Hochhuth, only thirty-one at 
the time, was an entirely unknown West German. 
Virtually everyone else involved with that play, however, 
had dedicated his or her life to serving Moscow, in one 
way or another. Even the Freie Volksbuhne, which 
sponsored the play’s premiere, was created to be a 

communist outlet in West Berlin. The most prominent tie 
to Moscow was provided by Erwin Piscator himself, the 
play’s director. Then sixty-nine years old, he had been a 
member of the Communist Party since its earliest days, 
and he had spent his entire life producing plays that 
reflected the Soviet communist line, including celebrating 
the imminent demise of capitalist society and of 
capitalism’s supposed clerical offshoot, the Catholic 

In the late 1920s, Piscator worked in collaboration 
with the great German (and communist) playwright 
Bertolt Brecht at the Theater am Nollendorfplatz. 
Together, they created “electrically charged productions 
of, among others, Hoppla, Wir Leben and Die Abenteuer 
Des Braven Soldaten SchwejkT^ 

In 1929, Piscator made his first visit to the Soviet 
Union, where he worked briefly with the International 
Association of Workers’ Theatres (lATB). As reported in 
his biography, “Communist artists came increasingly to 
take their cultural directives from Moscow. ... it became 
natural for leftist German artists not merely to visit Russia 
but to take jobs there. Accordingly, in 1931 Piscator 
moved to the USSR, where his initial desire was to make 
short propaganda films, an emerging art form in that 
nation. Lobbying to get started, he managed to obtain a 
two-hour meeting with Stalin’s brother-in-law.^ Soon 
Piscator was elected president of the Moscow- 

headquartered lATB, which then changed its name to the 
International Association of Revolutionary Theatres.^ 

When Romania was taken over by the Soviets after 
World War II, advisers from the Soviet security police 
and intelligence service established equivalent 
organizations in Bucharest. General Panteleymon 
Bondarenko, Romanianized as Gheorghe Pintilie but 
known as “Pantyusha,” was the Soviet intelligence officer 
assigned by Moscow as the first chief of the new 
Romanian Securitate. Over the years, since I eventually 
became his boss, I learned a great deal about Soviet 
intelligence operations from the garrulous and often tipsy 
Pantyusha. Several times Pantyusha reminisced about 
Piscator, telling me that before becoming president of the 
lATB (a Soviet intelligence front), Piscator had been 
recruited as an influence agent by the Soviet foreign 
intelligence service, the INO.^ 

The foul-mouthed Pantyusha explained: “Stalin did 
not give a f-cking damn kopek for any foreign communist 
in Moscow who tried to get out of working with us.” 
Pantyusha had reason to know, as he had worked 
undercover in the Comintern, which was sponsoring the 

Piscator was bom in Ulm, Germany, on December 17, 
1893. He was drafted into the German army in 1915 and 
was sent into battle during World War I.^ While in service 
in 1917 and 1918, he worked as a director and as an actor 

at a front theater in Kortrijk, Belgium. He joined the 
German Communist Party (KPD) in 1919, when it was 

The following year he moved back to Germany, where 
he got his start as a volunteer at the Hof Theater in 
Munich, but before long he became an actor, then a 
director at the Proletarisches Theater, a Marxist creation. 
Piscator wrote that one “task of the Proletarian Theatre is 
to spread its educational influence, through propaganda, 
among those of the masses who are still politically 
wavering and indifferent.”^^ 

In 1925, the KPD (the largest communist party outside 
of the Soviet Union at that time) asked Piscator to 
produce a political review. ^ ^ He put together a team 
including himself, a composer nominated by the party, 
and a writer/lyricist/producer. They came up with “about 
a dozen sketches, introduced by a potpourri of communist 
songs” that culminated in a “Victory of the Proletariat” 
scene. It was enough of a success that the KPD soon 
demanded that he stage a show for their first party 
conference. Piscator used the same team and produced a 
show with an “overwhelmingly documentary approach . . . 
virtually every character being historical (and in many 
cases still alive). 

The Communist Party was not completely happy with 
the production. Some officials thought it was too factual, 
which — of course — lessened the propaganda value of the 

production. “That may be what’s wrong, comrade director 
. . . Don’t stick so slavishly to ‘that’s the way it 
happened,”’ one official wrote. 

Piscator took the advice well and learned to 
fictionalize history. He soon found himself working with 
the leading communist playwrights in Germany. He also 
trained young actors, though it was said that they mainly 
received “courses by KPD officials; ‘one’s party card 
became a certificate of competence. ’’’^^ 

In at least one case, Piscator’ s company refused to 
produce a play because the author declined membership 
in the Communist Party. In another case, Piscator 
invited “representatives of the Soviet embassy and trade 
delegation and of the KPD and its paper” to one of the 
final rehearsals of a play, only to be told that he had to 
rewrite it. He complied, though it meant that opening 
night had to be delayed by two days.^^ In the program to a 
production from April 1930, Piscator wrote: 

Never was it more essential than now to take sides: the side 
of the proletariat. More than ever the theatre must nail its 
flag fanatieally to the mast of polities: the polities of the 
proletariat. More and more insistent grows the demand: 
theatre is aetion, the aetion of the proletariat. The stage and 
the masses, a ereative unity, not in the “Zeittheater” but in 

the militant theatre of the proletariat.^^ 

In the postscript to a 1934 edition to one play 

produced by Piscator, he wrote that his theater “was 
always political, that is to say political in the sense 
approved by the Communist Party.”^^ In 1941, he set 
forth his theory of theater: 

[I]t will be possible to make praetieally every bourgeois 
play, whether it expresses the deeay of bourgeois soeiety or 
whether it elearly shows the eapitalist prineiple, into an 
instrument to strengthen the eoneept of the elass struggle, 
to deepen revolutionary insight into historieal neeessities. It 
will be useful if sueh plays are introdueed by a talk, so as to 
prevent misunderstandings and wrong effeets. In eertain 
eireumstanees ehanges ean be made in plays (eoneern for 
the feelings of the author, is a eonservative affair) through 
euts, through amplifying eertain passages, even by adding a 
prologue and epilogue in order to make the meaning of the 
whole more elear. In this way a large portion of world 
literature ean be made to serve the eause of the 
revolutionary proletariat, just as the whole of world 
literature ean be used for the politieal purpose of 

propagating the eoneept of elass struggle.^ ^ 

This was a recipe that he would use to perfection with 
The Deputy some two decades later. 

Despite Piscator’ s dedication to the party, questions 
were raised in high communist circles about the direction 
of Piscator’ s work. The scale of his productions seemed 
too grand for the working class. They asked whether he 
was a “militant comrade or [just] a parlour communist. 
(His relationship with Nazi Germany’s propaganda 

minister Joseph Goebbels, who once submitted a play to 
Piscator and with whom Piscator considered doing a radio 
broadcast, may also have puzzled the ossified communist 
hierarchy. Ultimately, however, Piscator’ s “record as a 
supporter of the October Revolution and the Soviet 
regime was a good one; from the days of the Proletarian 
Theatre onwards, he had been caught up in the wave of 
pro-Soviet feeling.”^^ His biographer wrote: “The 
overriding fact remained that he was a communist and 
subject to party orders. 

Piscator defended his ideas in his 1929 book Das 
Politische Theater (“The Political Theater”). He wrote: 
“any artistic intention must be subordinated to the 
revolutionary purpose of the whole: the conscious 
emphasis and propagation of the concept of the class 
struggle.” Continuing: 

We, as revolutionary Marxists, eannot eonsider our task 
eomplete if we produee an uneritieal eopy of reality, 
eoneeiving the theatre as a mirror of the times. . . . The 
business of revolutionary theatre is to take reality as its 
point of departure and to magnify the soeial diserepaney, 
making it an element of our indietment, our revolt, our new 


Despite the minor difficulties that came up between 
Piscator and Communist Party officials, he had made a 
significant mark on the communist-oriented theater. 

Along with other dramatists, he “stirred up a 

revolutionary whirlwind in the theater. This stir followed 
directly in the wake of a successful Communist revolution 
in Russia.”^^ 

In 1938, Piscator was sent to Paris by the INO on a 
temporary assignment with the International 
Revolutionary Theater Group. There, Piscator claimed, 
Wilhelm Pieck — head of the German KPD in the Soviet 
Union (whom I know to have been an undercover INO 
colonel) — sent word to him not to return to Moscow 
because of the wave of arrests then taking place there.^^ 
This story is usually accepted by biographers of Piscator, 
but it may have been disinformation. The INO may have 
planned all along to send Piscator to the United States, the 
ultimate target for Soviet intelligence. 

Piscator did indeed take a boat for the United States, 
arriving in New York on January 2, 1939. There he 
opened the Dramatic Workshop at The New School for 
Social Research in New York City. This workshop 
launched the careers of many notable students, including 
Tennessee Williams, Marlon Brando, Walter Matthau, 
Rod Steiger, Shelley Winters, Harry Belafonte, Elaine 
Stritch, Ben Gazzara, and Tony Curtis.^^ 

Neither the Soviet pogroms nor the move to the 
United States diminished Piscator’ s desire to use the stage 
to advance his communist agenda. Of him, in 1940 Time 
magazine wrote: 

He produced great plays frankly as propaganda, stressed all 

possible class-war angles, and emphasized mass effects 
rather than individual actors. Determined to get his 
audiences “into” the plays, he abolished the curtain, had 
actors play in the aisles, loudspeakers sound from all parts 
of the house. His theatre became a versatile expressive 

“machine,” blending plays, films, radio. 

Of course, as the United States entered the Cold War, 
Piscator was more circumspect about his communist ties. 
As a biographer explained: “One of the difficulties in 
judging Piscator’ s American achievements is that so 
much of what has been written about the Dramatic 
Workshop has been like an exercise in public relations.”^ ^ 
The Communist Party, however, still had faith in him.^^ 

In 1951, following extensive FBI investigations 
connected with a deportation case against Piscator, he 
received a summons from the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities. Under the pressure of aggressive 
press reports, which called the Drama Workshop of the 
New School for Social Research a communist 
organization of “fellow travelers,” and pressure from the 
committee’s summons, Piscator abruptly went back to 
Germany. There, he was at first treated as “‘The Grand 
Old Man’ who had outlived himself.”^"^ 

Piscator spent nine years floating from one theater to 
another, but around 1960 he got back in touch with 
Bernhard Reich, a playwright and theater director. 

Piscator had worked with Reich in the Soviet Union in the 

1930s. (Reich claimed it was he who had warned Piscator 
in 1937 not to return to the Soviet Union from France, 
prompting Piscator’ s eventual move to the United States.) 
Reich had been unable to escape from the USSR in the 
1930s. He returned to Germany only in the mid-1950s as 
a “rehabilitated” Soviet critic. He may have played a 
role in having Piscator appointed manager and director of 
the Freie Volksbuhne in West Berlin in 1962. 

The Freie Volksbuhne was openly communist, along 
the lines of theaters Piscator had worked with in the 
1920s. The idea of a Berlin theater “of the people,” which 
underlies the Freie Volksbuhne, can be traced back to a 
Volksbuhne that was founded in 1892. (The word Freie 
was added to indicate that it was located in the free, or 
Western, sector of Berlin, just as the new university in the 
Western sector was called the Freie Universitdt.) The goal 
of the organization was to promote the social-realist plays 
of the day at prices accessible to the common worker. 

The Volksbuhne ’s slogan was ''Die Kunst dem Volke'' 
(Art for the People). The theater’s original building had 
been constructed in 1913-1914 on the eastern side of 
Berlin, but World War II reduced it to rubble. 

Construction of the Berlin Wall began in August 1961, 
dividing Berlin down the middle. Once it was completed, 
people from West Berlin were no longer able to cross 
over to see productions on the other side. East Berlin 
authorities decided to sponsor a new Freie Volksbuhne in 

the western part of the city, to take care of that problem. It 
would present communist propaganda to viewers in West 

After several years of trying to find a permanent 
home, in 1962 Piscator succeeded in becoming director of 
West Berlin’s Freie Volksbiihne, which did not yet have a 
real stage of its own. He therefore opened the theater’s 
first season with the production of Der Stellvertreter on 
the stage of the Theater am Kurfurstendamm, an 
established theater that could accommodate his 
requirements for dramatic theatrical effects. The 
production, however, was selected to serve the purposes 
of the Communist Party. 



The DEPUTY focuses on two main characters, Kurt Gerstein 
(based on a real person) and the fictional Father Riccardo 
Fontana. As a prisoner of the Allies after the war, the real 
Gerstein (a Nazi officer) set forth a written statement on 
which the broad outline of the play was later allegedly 
based. Gerstein ’s story may have been true, but he was a 
confused man who was found hanged in his cell (perhaps 
a suicide) before his story could be confirmed. As such, 
he remains an enigmatic figure.^ The Fontana character is 
fictional, though Hochhuth has said it was based upon Fr. 
Maximilian Kolbe and Fr. Bernhard Lichtenberg (to both 
of whom his play was dedicated), and upon similar self- 
sacrificing priests.^ 

The basic plot of The Deputy involves a good Nazi 

(Gerstein) who tells a good priest (the fictional Fontana) 
about what the Nazis are doing to the Jews. Fontana, 
however, is continually thwarted in his efforts to get a 
message to the pope. When he finally succeeds. Pope Pius 
XII does not care about the victims. Fontana then 
sacrifices himself by putting on a yellow star and going to 
a concentration camp, thereby becoming the true deputy 
of Christ. Recurring themes include the idea that Hitler’s 
war against the Soviet Union was a kind of papal crusade, 
and that Pius and the Jesuits were primarily concerned 
about their investments in the armament factories. 

Although Hochhuth has gone back and forth on the 
issue, at least once he wrote that The Deputy had no 
imputation of anti-Semitism, because there was no 
evidence that Pius was an anti-Semite.^ Obviously, the 
silence of any character cannot drive a theatrical 
production, so Pius is not onstage very long. Papal 
silence, however, is the subject of much dialogue in the 
final version of the play. Nearly all the other characters 
discuss among themselves, or at least mention, the pope’s 
failure to speak out directly and forcefully against Hitler’s 
treatment of the Jews, thus leading up to a direct 
confrontation consisting of a single pivotal scene. In some 
productions it is the only scene in which the pope himself 
appears onstage. In some versions, the pope’s final act is 
to wash his hands, stained with ink from his editing of a 
statement that was never made, in a manner reminiscent 

of Pontius Pilate.^ 

If it were produced as written, The Deputy would take 
seven or eight hours to perform. Since that does not meet 
theatrical needs, the German producer, Erwin Piscator, 
edited the script into a more manageable length, making 
very substantial changes along the way.^ In fact, 
considerable alterations were made to both plot and 
staging in every country where the play was produced, 

A synopsis of Piscator’ s original play is as follows: 

Act I: The Deputy opens with a discussion over whether 
Pope Pius XII should have abrogated the concordat to 
protest the actions of the Nazis. A cold-hearted Catholic 
industrialist — played by the same actor who plays Pius — 
defends his use of slave labor. 

Act II: Hitler feared Pius more than any other world leader. 
Pius, however, has too many commercial interests that 
preclude him from condemning Hitler. A cardinal argues 
that the Nazis are the last bulwark to stand against Soviet 
domination of Europe. 

Act III: As Jews are rounded up “under the Pope’s 
windows,” Riccardo Fontana, the fictional priest 
protagonist, declares, “Doing nothing is as bad as taking 
part. . . . God can forgive a hangman for such work, but not 
a priest, not the Pope!” A German officer comments that 
the pope has given friendly audiences to thousands of 
German soldiers. 

Act IV: Pius, who has an “aristocratic coldness” and an 

“icy glint” in his eyes, expresses eoneem about the 
Vatiean’s finaneial assets and the Allied bombing of 
faetories. He worries that the bombing will impoverish the 
Italian workers and they will ultimately beeome 
anarehists/eommunists. Pius reiterates his eommitment to 
help the Jews while keeping silent to avoid greater evil. 

When angrily questioned by Fontana, Pius pontifieates on 
the geopolitieal importanee of a strong Germany vis-a-vis 
the Soviet threat. 

Aet V: Fontana pulls open his shirt and reveals that he is 
wearing a yellow star out of support for the Jews. He joins 
deportees to die at Ausehwitz, where the rest of the aet 
takes plaee, ending with a quotation from German 
ambassador Ernst von Weizsaeker: “Sinee further aetion on 
the Jewish problem is probably not to be expeeted here in 
Rome, it may be assumed that this question, so troublesome 

to German- Vatiean relations, has been disposed of.”^ 

The Deputy was more noted for its charges against the 
pope than for its plot or theatric insight. The play does not 
develop Pius as a tragic figure, since he is neither 
tragically indecisive nor torn by his alternatives. Not only 
does he lack Christian charity, but he also lacks simple 
human decency. Variety wrapped it up in its own way: 

“If s hardly picture material, of course, and doubtful for 
the road or stock. 

A play is just a play, but Hochhuth, and others 
associated with The Deputy, wanted this to be something 
more. According to Hochhuth, the “main thesis” of The 

Deputy was “that Hitler drew back from the extermination 
program as soon as high German clerics ... or the Vatican 
. . . forcibly intervened.”^ 

In the “Sidelights” to The Deputy Hochhuth says: 
“Perhaps never before in history have so many human 
beings paid with their lives for the passivity of a single 
statesman.”^ In an editorial, the Jesuit magazine America 
responded: “perhaps never before in history have so many 
vicious, tendentious and mean imputations of motives 
been based on such flimsy, distorted and falsified 
historical arguments. The Deputy is character 

The general view of Pius XII, based on what had been 
widespread knowledge of him for two decades, suddenly 
and spectacularly flipped from lily white to coal black 
after The Deputy saw the light, without any new evidence 
being produced. That prompted America magazine to ask: 

What has happened ... to erase with one sweep these 
informed and unsolieited tributes to the memory of Pope 
Pius XII? Why do they eount for nothing when The Deputy 
eomes to town? By what dialeetie, or through what human 
fiekleness, has a great benefaetor of humanity and of the 

Jews partieularly, now beeome a eriminal?^^ 

Many students of the play have wondered where 
Hochhuth got his information, particularly relating to 
papal motives. As one author wrote: 

Where did Hoehhuth get his faets? He was able to use the 
evidenee presented at the Nuremberg trials and at the 
Eiehmann trial, and to eonsult US and German historieal 
reeords and eontemporary doeuments. These provided him 
with material for his deseriptions of the perseeution of the 
Jews and for his eoneentration eamp seenes. But for his 
main eharges — the eontemptible motives he attributes to 
Pope Pius XII for his silenee — he quotes no doeumentary 

evidenee at alL^^ 

Hoehhuth said he spent three months in Rome 
“studying the atmosphere, talking to Swiss Guards, 
Romans and Jews who had been hidden in Italian 
monasteries.”^^ Since he never had access to any archive, 
Hoehhuth claimed to rely upon answers to a series of 
questions he posed to “an elderly and experienced 
German- speaking bishop,” but he refused to name the 
bishop. Instead, he brought unwarranted suspicion on 
numerous Vatican officials. 

Both my coauthor and I have visited the Vatican many 
times, armed with impressive official credentials, but 
neither of us has been able to push a bishop into a comer 
and persuade him to reveal secret Vatican documents. 
Maybe Hoehhuth got lucky. Maybe he made the story up 
(his reputation for veracity is not good), or maybe he 
referred to the Vatican documents obtained by the three 
DIE agents involved in “Seat- 12.” In the end, these varied 
possibilities are irrelevant. The important point is that one 
play alone could not have changed the world’s perception 

of Pius XII from an anti-Nazi pope into a pro-Nazi one. 
No single piece of literature could accomplish such a 
transformation. A fiih-blown KGB framing operation 
could, however, do just that. 

Some of the factual mistakes regarding the Church 
that appear in The Deputy are not the kind that high 
clerics or a bishop would have made. Soviet 
dezinformatsiya experts might, however, make just such 
mistakes. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn indentified the 
following mistakes (and others) in his 1969 book. The 
Timeless Christian: 

1. Father Fontana is referred to as “Count Rieeardo 
Fontana, a twenty-seven-year-old Jesuit, who works as a 
young attaehe in the Berlin nuneiature.” First of all, the 
time needed to prepare for a Jesuit priesthood prevents 
anyone from beeoming a Jesuit at that young age. 
Additionally, at that time there were no Jesuits in the 
diplomatie serviee. Perhaps most obviously, Jesuits do not 
retain seeular titles, like “Count”; they have to give them 

2. The play mentions a eoneordat between the Vatiean and 
Japan. No sueh agreement was ever signed. 

3. The play also has Spanish eourt dress being worn in the 
Vatiean — “the somber beautiful eourt dress of Henry II.” It 
is simply not true. 

4. Aeeording to the play. Hitler forbade all measures 
against the Chureh. Pastor Martin Niemoeller, president of 

the World Council of Churches (1961-84), who was sent to 
Dachau (1937-1945) for opposing the nazi-fication of the 
Protestant Church, and lots of other religious victims of 
Hitler’s Nazism wish that were true! 

5. Pius XII was always alone at the table because he could 
not abide the sight of a human face. In actuality, Pius 
followed the Vatican custom of taking most meals alone, 
but he sometimes dined with guests, and he was known as a 

witty conversationalist.^^ 

6. An officer of the Swiss Guard is depicted in full uniform 
in the center of Rome to summon a cardinal who was 
visiting Count Fontana. Swiss Guards, however, were not 
permitted to wear the uniform outside the Vatican. 

7. The Society of Jesus is mistakenly referred to as the 
“Order of Jesus,” and in the play the “Order of Jesus” 
supplied the Soviet Union with mercury from Spanish 
mines. That did not happen. 

8. Contrary to the play, there was no papal legate in 
Washington at that time, only an apostolic delegate. 

9. In the scene where Pius tried to forbid Fr. Fontana from 
pinning the Star of David on his cassock, the Pope says: 

“We forbid him to do it — forbid it ex cathedra!” This is 
absurd. Ex cathedra pronouncements can be made only in 

respect of dogmatic formulations.^^ 

The historical aspects of The Deputy contain further 
circumstantial evidence that the show was produced by 

the KGB’s framing experts. The printed play’s appendix, 
entitled “Sidelights on History,” has been described as 

Forty-five pages of demonstration and proof! But the 
quantity is deeeptive. The materials are all mixed up 
higgledy-piggledy; seldom are we told preeisely where the 
arguments and quotations eome from . . . “Solid eolleetions 
of sourees are mentioned only in isolated instanees; but 
evidenee and witnesses of dubious value are mentioned 
frequently. . . . The work is based on seeond and third-hand 
evidenee, on popular books whieh do not even elaim to 

provide a final elarifieation ... 

The “Sidelights” reveals a close association with 
postwar Soviet propaganda. As German scholar Michael 
Feldkamp noted: “In the summer of 1963 the Vatican 
pointed out ‘numerous similarities’ between Hochhuth’s 
play and ‘the usual communist propaganda against the 
Church and the Pope,’ among them the charge of a 
‘common crusade with Hitler against the Soviet Union,’ 
and the claim that the ‘enormous economic power’ of the 
Holy See and the Jesuit order explained their 
abandonment of Christian moral principles.” The West 
German government even expressed its “deepest regret” 
for such attacks on Pius XII, since he had protested racial 
persecution by the Third Reich and had “saved as many 
Jews as possible from the hands of their persecutors.”^^ 
More recently, Giovanni Maria Vian, editor of the 

Vatican’s newspaper L ’Osservatore Romano, wrote that 
the play “took up many of the ideas proposed by Mikhail 
Markovich Scheinmann in his book Der Vatican in 
Zweiten Weltkrieg (“The Vatican in the Second World 
War”), first published in Russian by the Historical 
Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, a 
propaganda instrument of Communist ideology. Vian 
noted that Pius XII’s approach during the war had been 
“anti-Communist, and because of this, already during the 
war, the Pope became the target of Soviet propaganda as 
being in cahoots with Nazism and its horrors. 

Scheinmann’ s book, of course, was pure Soviet 
propaganda. Historian John Conway explained: 

Scheinmann’ s book is notable for its assiduous culling of 
source material and the utter perversity of its conclusions. 
According to Scheinmann, Pope Pius XII was obsessed by 
one thought alone, the need to organize a erusade against 
the Soviet Union, and he sought every possible assistanee 
for this purpose. In eonsequenee the aets of any anti-Soviet 
government, however eriminal, were to be ignored or even 
approved. Various aspeets of this “portrait” have been 
taken over by Hoehhuth, though he explieitly denies the 
eharge that the Vatiean was seeking to organize a erusade 

against Bolshevism.^^ 

Hoehhuth had an advantage not available to 
Scheinmann. He — and his legion of promoters and 
defenders — could deflect any criticism by pointing out 

that it was a play; it was fiction. At the same time, 
especially with the historical appendix, The Deputy had 
claim of historical honesty. It was a true highpoint for 
Soviet disinformation. 



The deputy ran for only a couple of weeks in Berlin, 
receiving mixed reviews at best, but it caused a political 
uproar.^ Its negative view of Pius XII was denied by 
virtually every person who had firsthand knowledge of 
the pope’s wartime activities. German chancellor Konrad 
Adenauer even apologized to the Vatican for Piscator’s 

Despite its short and commercially unsuccessful 
debut, however, Der Stellvertreter was quickly translated 
and produced by some of the most prominent names in 
theater. All were Western communists or sympathizers. 
The first French production of Der Stellvertreter took 

place at the Theatre de I’Athenee in Paris. The translator 
was Jorge Semprun, an award-winning novelist and 
playwright. He was also an active communist.^ 

Semprun had been a communist militant since his 
youth, and he joined a communist resistance group in 
France during World War II. After the war, while still in 
France, he also joined the exiled Communist Party of 
Spain (PCE). For nearly a decade in the 1950s and early 
1960s, Semprun organized clandestine activities for the 
PCE.^ In fact, at the time when he translated Hochhuth’s 
play, he was still an active member of the party’s top 
echelon, the Politburo. Only after being expelled from the 
Politburo in 1965 (over strategy differences) did Semprun 
truly focus on his legitimate writing career.^ 

The French production was codirected by Francis 
Darbon and noted British director Peter Brook. Like 
Piscator, Brook was a theatrical legend. Unlike Piscator 
and Semprun, there is no documented evidence that he 
was a member of the Communist Party. As a young man, 
however. Brook wrote that his “political certainties” had 
been shaken when the Soviets reached an accord with the 
Nazis. ^ Furthermore, during World War II Brook 
produced a play (his first attempt at directing), with the 
proceeds going to the “Aid to Russia Fund.”^ In 1955, he 
made a very successful tour of the Soviet Union. ^ 
Discussing the Soviets’ attraction to his work. Brook 
explained: “Above all, they kept commenting on what 

they termed our simplicity, austerity and economy. 
Suddenly they realized that they were using the very 
words with which Khrushchev had launched his new line 
of architecture.”^ Later, when Brook put together an anti- 
Vietnam play, US, the Lord Chamberlain complained that 
it was “bestial, anti-American, and Communist.” 

Brook’s production of The Deputy ran for about six 
months in Paris, and it went a long way toward 
establishing the so-called Theatre of Fact in France. 
Brook, however, did not like the “Theatre of Fact” label. 
“You can never get to the facts,” he said. “Fd rather call it 
the theatre of myth.”^^ 

In addition to working in France, Brook was one of 
the three permanent directors of the new, but highly 
regarded. Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) at the 
Aldwych Theatre in London. This company was 
established by Peter Hall (later. Sir Peter Reginald 
Franklin Hall), another one of the most influential figures 
in postwar British theater. He and Brook served as 
permanent directors along with French director Michel St. 
Denis. Like many young directors at the time. Hall was 
deeply influenced by popular theatrical trends, and the 
RSC soon came “to be regarded as an avant-garde 
stronghold.”^ ^ 

In his book Strategies of Political Theatre, author 
Michael Patterson lists the 1961 establishment of the RSC 
and its expansion into the Aldwych Theatre (which 

permitted more modem productions) in a “brief 
chronology” of political theatre. In 1962, a commentator 
wrote: “At the Aldwych . . . Peter Hall has offered 
incomparable opportunities to several dramatists of the 
new school in recent months.” On the other hand, “some 
London visitors [were] puzzled to find a Shakespeare 
company so relentlessly dedicated to introducing the 
newest and fartherest-out [sic] drama.” (A few years 
later, Emile Littler, a theatrical producer and a board 
member of the RSC, expressed moral outrage at the “dirt 
plays” that the company was producing at the 

Der Stellvertreter received its first English production 
in London by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the 
Aldwych Theatre in 1963 under the title The 
Representative?^ Robert David MacDonald translated the 
play for the RSC.^^ He had worked as a translator for the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO) in the 1950s. At that time, 
UNESCO was perceived by many as a platform for 
communists to attack the West,^^ and the KGB used it to 
place agents around the world.^^ (UNESCO also assisted 
with the publication of the journal World Theatre, which 
praised Erwin Piscator’s courage for bringing Der 
Stellvertreter to the stage. )^^ 

While working at UNESCO, MacDonald met Piscator. 
Although he had no prior theatrical experience. 

MacDonald “immediately became involved in theatre as a 
director. He worked with Piscator in Berlin, and the 
two men formed a close professional relationship. This 
led to MacDonald’s translating (and reworking) Der 
Stellvertreter into English.^^ 

The period 1963-64 was the highpoint in terms of 
Communist Party membership in Great Britain, and 
political theater was just beginning to take hold.^^ “Like 
shock waves expanding concentrically across all of 
Europe, interest in the epic theater of [German 
Communist playwright Bertolt] Brecht grew in direct 
proportion as the ideology of Communism gained 
respectability within Europe’s intellectual classes. 

Several new and talented playwrights “shared a laudable 
but strange conviction: that by writing plays and having 
them performed, they might help to change the way 
society is structured. By 1978, Performing Arts 
Journal would report: “In general, the hope of political 
theatre groups is that, eventually, Britain will have a 
Marxist-based socialist government representing the 
working class, and that production and distribution will be 
worker controlled. 

The director who handled The Representative at the 
Aldwych was Clifford Williams.^ ^ He added a new scene 
at the beginning of the play and ended with a film of the 
Auschwitz victims being buried by bulldozer. 

Newspaper clippings and other documents were also read 

over loudspeakers at different points in the play.^^ Of 
Williams it was written: “Hochhuth’s play undoubtedly 
spurred Williams’s interest — at a time of shifting social 
and theatrical perspectives in theatre that might provoke 
arguments or disturb complacency.”^'^ Of course, 
Williams had come to the RSC from the “Left-wing and 
indeed almost Communist” Theatre Workshop, where 
he had trained under the noted communist director Joan 

The American publisher of Der Stellvertreter was Grove 
Press in New York. Grove Press belonged to Barney 
Rosset, a self-proclaimed communist, who purchased the 
company in 1951, and turned it into an influential 
alternative press. Among the radical political thinkers and 
writers Grove Press published in the 1960s were Malcolm 
X and Erwin Piscator’s old partner, Bertolt Brecht. Grove 
Press also published Che Guevara’s diaries, with an 
introduction by Fidel Castro. Che’s diaries, of course, 
were produced by the Kremlin’s dezinformatsiya 
machinery. His KGB-enhanced diaries were serialized in 
Evergreen Review and then released in book form by 
Grove Press. Evergreen Review, like Grove Press, was 
owned by Barney Rosset. In a 2006 interview, Rosset was 
asked about his religion. He replied that he never had a 
religion: “So I became a Communist. As a religion. And 

you better believe it.”^^ 

Evergreen Review also promoted The Deputy. In May 
1964, just after the play opened on Broadway, Evergreen 
Review published an article written by Hochhuth.^^ In 
addition, not only did the magazine run advertisements 
for the book version of The Deputy', it used cross- 
marketing and advertised Rudolf Vrba’s / Cannot 
Forgive, calling it “an eyewitness report — documenting 
The Deputy — ^by a man who escaped from Auschwitz. 

In actuality, Vrba’s account proved highly suspect, and he 
later admitted that he had taken “artistic license” in 
writing it.^^ 

Herman Shumlin was the American producer who 
brought Der Stellvertreter to Broadway as The Deputy. 
While he was not of the same historic importance as 
Piscator or Brook, he had a long, successful career in film 
and on the stage. Among his Broadway productions were 
The Last Mile (1930), Grand Hotel (1930), The 
Children ’s Hour (1934), The Little Foxes (1939), The 
Male Animal (1940), The Corn Is Green (1940), Watch on 
the Rhine (1941), The Searching Wind (1944), Inherit the 
Wind (1955), and The Deputy (1964). 

Shumlin was also an active communist. According to 
Time magazine (February 5, 1940), Shumlin was the only 
producer who advertised in the communist Daily Worker. 

The article went on to note that “Mr. Shumlin had almost 
no friends except Leftist Lillian Heilman.” Heilman, with 
whom Shumlin had a professional and a romantic 
relationship, was outspoken in her support for 
communism. The notes for a play she authored (The Little 
Foxes) state that she was “known both for her mink coats 
and her outspoken support of the Communist Party and 
communist-affiliated organizations.”^^ 

Shumlin served as chairman of “the leftist Joint Anti- 
Fascist Refugee Committee” (JAFRC)."^^ This 
organization was “originally formed by Communists to 
aid Stalinist refugees from Spain. Although the 
JAFRC’s charter was to raise money for relief causes, 
after World War II it sent funds to Yugoslavia, helping 
the communists win the first postwar elections. In 1947, 
JAFRC was investigated for communist infiltration by the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities. When 
JAFRC refused to turn records over, a federal judge held 
Shumlin and fifteen other members of JAFRC guilty of 
contempt of Congress. Shumlin was given a five-hundred- 
dollar fine and a suspended three-month jail term.^^ 

In 1964, Shumlin received a Tony award for bringing 
The Deputy to Broadway. This was perhaps due in large 
part to the perceived bravery it took to stand up against all 
of those who objected to the play’s characterization of 
Pius. Many critics did not like Shumlin ’s version of The 
Deputy, but it ran on Broadway for almost a year. That 

seems not to have been as a result of the play’s theatrical 
quality. Discussing concern about violence from 
protestors at the opening, New York Times theater critic 
Frank Rich wrote: “The only bomb was on stage, but the 
publicity turned the show, now forgotten, into a quasi-hit 
and earned its producer a Tony for his courage. 

Another critic said the play was “like one of those comic- 
strip versions of a literary classic. 

It is probably to be expected that Shumlin would write 
a magazine article about the play. His piece appeared in 
the February 1964 issue of Jewish World. Another of the 
early praises of The Deputy published in the United States 
was written by David Horowitz.^^ As the latter has since 
explained, he was at that time a practicing communist.'^^ 
Before eventually becoming a leader of the conservative 
(or neoconservative) political movement, Horowitz spent 
time in various leadership positions at Ramparts 
magazine, which made its way from its founding in the 
early 1960s as a Catholic periodical to a far-Left 
magazine suspected of having Soviet funding.^^ 

By the end of his life, syndicated columnist Max 
Lemer was viewed by many as a conservative, but that 
turn came late. As a younger man, he backed the 
communists in the Spanish Civil War, and he was 
reluctant to denounce the Moscow purge trials. Prior to 
the Hitler- Stalin pact that preceded World War II, Lemer 
and other American leftist intellectuals, including Soviet 

agent 1. F. Stone, signed a letter that appeared in The 
Nation magazine (where Lemer served as political editor). 
The letter was a “full throated defense of Stalinism,” and 
it criticized fellow liberals for being anticommunist.^^ At 
the end of the Second World War, Lemer attended a gala 
banquet with Red Army generals. Later he took up 
permanent residence in Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Mansion. 
Like so many other Americans with leftist ties, he wrote a 
piece promoting The Deputy. 

Michael Harrington, originally a follower of American 
Catholic Dorothy Day, “dropped Day’s anarchism, 
pacifism and religion, in that order. He praised The 
Deputy in Midstream magazine (December 1963). At this 
time, Harrington was the American Socialist Party’s 
bridge to new student members. A “lifelong Socialist,” 
Harrington was the chairman of Democratic Socialists of 
America and the leader of the American socialist 
movement until his death, in 1989.^^ Of course, many 
communists wrote under pseudonyms, making later 
identification impossible. 

In March 1964, as The Deputy was opening on 
Broadway, Susan Sontag, who throughout her career was 
criticized for repeating Marxist jargon,^ ^ highly praised 
The Deputy in “Book World,” a section of the New York 
Herald Tribune. This was about two years before 
Sontag emerged as an important American writer and 
political activist who marched “under the dual banners of 

modernism and Marxism.”^^ In fact, as late as 1978 — 
well after she recognized that Marxism was often used to 
support totalitarian regimes — she said: “I want to remain 
Marxist in a certain sense. 

Just months after The Deputy debuted in Berlin, Rowohlt 
of Hamburg, the far-left German publisher of the play, 
came out with a paperback book titled Summa Iniuria, 
Oder Durfte der Papst Schweigen? (“The Height of 
Injustice, or Should the Pope Have Remained Silent?”). It 
contained “90 commentaries selected from more than 
3,000 major articles, addresses, and brochures dealing 
with the play.”^^ The compiler of the essays, Fritz J. 
Raddatz, was best known as a scholar of Karl Marx. He 
wrote Karl Marx: A Political Biography, and he edited 
a collection of letters between Marx and Friedrich 

As a matter of fact, Raddatz very likely played a role 
in Rowohlt’ s publication of Der Stellvertreter from the 
outset. In the 1950s, Raddatz was head of the foreign 
department and deputy chief of the Volk und Welt (People 
and World) publishing house in East Berlin — ^positions 
that in my experience would have required him to have a 
relationship with the East German Stasi, and possibly 
with the KGB. In 1958, Raddatz crossed over into West 
Germany and settled in Hamburg, where by 1960 he had 

become the chief reader of the Rowohlt publishing house, 
as well as close associate and deputy to Heinrich Maria 
Ledig-Rowohlt, the head of the firm. He remained with 
Rowohlt until 1969.^^ 

In the United States, the communist-owned Grove 
Press did the same thing as Rowohlt, publishing a book 
entitled The Storm over the Deputy: Essays and articles 
about Hochhuth ’s explosive drama just months after the 
play debuted on Broadway. This book was a collection of 
essays, reviews, and interviews related to the play and the 
issues it raised. The editor of this collection was Eric 
Bentley, best known for his work on the German 
communist playwright (and former Piscator collaborator) 
Bertolt Brecht — “the world’s most famous 
communist. Bentley also edited the Grove Press 
edition of Brecht’s work, and he wrote a highly personal 
memoir of his years with Brecht and a play based upon 
Brecht’s testimony before the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities. Many of the reviews and essays 
included in The Storm over the Deputy were penned by 
authors with close ties to communism, but even those 
essays that defended Pius served the purpose of keeping 
this issue alive. 

The Deputy finally made it to film in 2002, in the 
motion picture Amen. The screenwriter for the project was 
Jorge Semprun, the former member of the Spanish 
Communist Party’s Politburo who had translated the play 

into French.^^ The film’s accomplished director was 
Constantinos Gavras, better known as Costa-Gavras. 

After World War II, Gavras ’s Greek father was found to 
be a communist and sent to prison. Costa-Gavras was 
denied a visa to the United States over concern that he 
was also a communist. Some of his later politically 
charged films seemed to confirm that suspicion, but he 
also made films critical of totalitarian (Soviet) regimes. 
There is no proof that he was a member of the Communist 



Broadway, an American journalistic icon, who is still 
compared to the likes of H. L. Mencken and William F. 
Buckley, published a powerful piece faulting the Catholic 
Church for its role in the rise of Fascism. Writing in his 
own influential weekly, 1. F. Stone stated: 

Pius XII, in being friendly to Hitler [and to Mussolini] was 
only following in the footsteps of Pius XL . . . More than the 
sin of silenee lies on the eonseienees of God’s “deputies.” 

They were aeeessories in the ereation of these eriminal 
regimes. ... It helps to heal our hearts that a young German 
should have written The Deputy. It is also a good sign that 
the play should have aroused sueh animosity — like a 
painful memory dragged unwillingly from the subeonseious 

of a whole generation. ^ 

Later that year, Stone wrote another piece, insinuating 
that Pius XII had feared Hitler.^ Recently published KGB 
documents in the Vassiliev Archive show that 1. F. Stone 
(ne Isidor Feinstein) was a paid Soviet spy. He had 
originally been recruited by the NKVD in 1936 on 
ideological grounds and given the codename “Blin” 
(Russian for “pancake”).^ Venona intercepts of highly 
classified, Soviet-intelligence-enciphered communication 
from 1944 show that Stone then had a new NKVD 
handler, Vladimir Pravdin, whom he agreed to meet 
regularly and to whom he indicated that he would not be 
averse to having a “supplementary income.” 

In a cable sent to Moscow, Pravdin recommended to 
NKVD headquarters that if this “business” relationship 
were agreed upon, then Stone would have to do his part 
and really produce. Subsequent Venona intercepts show 
that by December 1944 the business relationship had 
worked out, and Stone was being secretly paid by the 
NKVD for producing articles on subjects recommended 
to him by Moscow. Throughout his career. Stone’s 
articles indicate he continued to be used by Soviet 
intelligence as a dezinformatsiya outlet.^ 

Changing minds is what Soviet communism was all 
about. Changing minds was also Stone’s main task as 
Soviet spy. He was prominent in his day, and he was 

certainly a prize asset for the NKVD/KGB. It is now 
known to be more than coincidental that his articles 
expressed the position of the Soviet Union on so many 
issues: demonizing the Korean policies of John Foster 
Dulles, General MacArthur, and President Truman; 
condemning US efforts to prevent communist expansion 
in Vietnam; belittling the FBI and embarrassing J. Edgar 
Hoover; maligning Pope Pius XII and faulting the 
Catholic Church — the KGB’s archenemy — for the Nazi 
persecution of Jews; supporting the Kremlin’s efforts to 
persuade the world that there was no Soviet involvement 
in the JFK assassination; and many, many similar issues. 
Even some of the issues for which he might be hailed 
today, including opposition to racial discrimination and 
McCarthyism, were right in line with the Soviet position 
at the time. 

Stone’s prominence and his caustic style played an 
immense role in calling attention to The Deputy and 
making it a cause celebre. In addition. Stone’s sister, 
leftist theater critic Judy Stone, contributed a friendly 
interview with Hochhuth, which was published in 
Ramparts magazine in the spring of 1964.^ 

In 1963, as The Deputy was beginning to create a stir 
in Berlin and cause a rift between Catholics and Jews, a 
KGB-sponsored publisher in the United States, the 
Liberty-Prometheus Book Club, republished an old book 
that mirrored the charges raised by The Deputy. The book 

was Shylock: The History of a Character, authored by 
Hermann Sinsheimer, and it focused on the mistreatment 
of Jews by popes and other Christians.^ As the KGB had 
hoped, this book found its way into major media outlets, 
where authors sympathetic to The Deputy continued the 
play’s promotion.^ 

Liberty-Prometheus Book Club was co-owned by Carl 
Aldo Marzani, an Italian-bom American communist and 
very active Soviet dezinformatsiya agent, probably 
recruited before World War 11.^ After the war, he served 
thirty-two months in prison for concealing his 
membership in the Communist Party while working for 
the State Department. Upon his release he went into 
various leftist publishing ventures, for which he received 
KGB subsidies.^ 

Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive show that over 
the years Marzani (KGB codenamed “Nord,” German for 
north), received substantial sums of money for having his 
Liberty Book Club publishing company (codenamed 
“Sever,” Russian for north) produce pro-Soviet material. 
Marzani was also given an annual ten thousand dollars to 
advertise those books aggressively.^^ (Years ago, Soviet 
intelligence often used German words to designate its 
agents abroad, probably because many of its undercover 
handlers were from Central Europe and spoke that 
language. The fact that Marzani had a German codename 
supports the suggestion that he may have been a prewar 


In early 1960, the KGB station in New York, which 
was handling Marzani, sent an enciphered cable to 
Moscow recommending that he be given an additional six 
thousand to seven thousand dollars, in order to enable 
Liberty Book Club to continue publishing pro- Soviet 
material. The cable justified its request as follows: 

NORD is an extremely energetie person and is quite 
devoted to his task. Despite his finaneial diffieulties, he is 
struggling to keep SEVER afloat. SEVER, together with its 
eommereial bookselling network, the Prometheus Book 
Club, has been in existenee for fourteen years. During this 
time it has published and distributed more than 200 titles of 
a progressive nature, by both Ameriean and foreign 
authors. The eatalogue of the SEVER publishing firm lists 
around fifty titles, and the Prometheus Book Club has 
7,000 members. Books are also sent to 8,000 addresses on 
an individual basis. 

In May I960, the International Department of the 
Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, which was 
responsible for supplying the dezinformatsiya funds in 
this instance, approved a secret grant of fifteen thousand 
dollars, more than twice what the New York KGB station 
had requested. ^ ^ 

It was entirely unusual for the Communist Party’s 
International Department to have been brought into the 
plans for what at first blush seems to have been a general 

and fairly routine disinformation operation that had been 
around for years. Moreover, although the New York 
station’s cable was sent to KGB headquarters in Moscow, 
from the overblown wording of the request for funds it is 
clear in retrospect that the cable was actually addressed to 
the International Department — KGB headquarters had 
been funding Marzani for many years and did not need to 
be told what he did and how good he was at it. It is also 
particularly remarkable that more than double the 
requested amount was quickly approved. 

The significance of the above cable exchange lies in 
when it took place — early 1960. It was in February I960 
that Khrushchev approved an all-out, very secret 
operational plan designed to destroy the Vatican’s moral 
authority and at the same time to tarnish the reputation of 
the United States. The plan had been dreamt up by KGB 
chairman Aleksandr Shelepin together with Alexei 
Kirichenko, the Politburo member responsible for 
international policy. The operation was to be carried out 
jointly by the KGB and the Communist Party, i.e., the 
latter’s International Department. The cable exchange is 
evidence that the KGB immediately tasked its stations 
abroad to contribute in whatever way they could to this 
offensive, just as my DIE was given the assignment to 
procure any and all possible Vatican documents. 

In 1963, the first book about the Kennedy 
assassination to appear in the United States, Oswald: 

Assassin or Fall Guy?, was published by Marzani.^^ That 
book, written by a documented KGB agent, Joachim 
Joesten, alleged that the CIA had killed President 
Kennedy, but, as with The Deputy, it did not produce any 
evidence to support the charge. 

The first review of Joesten’ s book was signed by an 
American journalist also paid by the KGB, Victor Perlo 
(identified as a Soviet agent by Elisabeth Bentley and 
Whittaker Chambers, and in the Venona electronic 
intercepts). Perlo ’s endorsing review was published in 
New Times (a KGB front, at one time secretly printed in 
Romania), which published nine more articles on the 
assassination, ah accusing elements in the United States 
of the crime. 

Perlo also wrote one of the first laudatory reviews of 
The Deputy, for the same KGB front. New Times. Many 
people in the United States and around the world are still 
convinced, even today, that the CIA was behind President 
Kennedy’s assassination. Many people around the world 
also continue to believe another of the Kremlin’s lies: that 
Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” 

M. S. (Max) Arnoni, a Holocaust survivor, onetime editor 
of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and publisher of A 
Minority of One, a highbrow magazine for the liberal 
American elite, also jumped in to promote The Deputy. 
According to former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, now an 

American citizen, Arnoni received money from the KGB 
for promoting the Soviet line in the American media. 
Kalugin spent years spying in the United States for the 
KGB under the cover of a journalist. One of his tasks 
was to recruit agents in American left-leaning magazines 
and newspapers. Kalugin would even, on occasion, 
finance these magazines and newspapers and then plant 
stories reflecting the Soviet line, hoping that other news 
outlets would repeat them. Kalugin wrote: “I had no 
qualms about stirring up as much trouble as possible. . . . 
”16 American communists were happy to help with such 
projects. As a recent commentator noted: “However 
loathsome and psychotic” J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI may 
have been, it “got one thing right: The [Communist Party 
of the United States] was an arm of Soviet foreign policy, 
no more, no less.”^^ 

Kalugin developed close ties with Arnoni. At first, 
Kalugin simply relied on his friendship with the publisher 
of A Minority of One to place KGB-written articles into 
his magazine. As Arnoni ’s financial situation worsened, 
Kalugin first funded the publication of some letter/ads 
(often signed by several leftist journalists) in the New 
York Times. Eventually, Kalugin gave Arnoni ten 
thousand from the KGB. Arnoni hid the source of the 
funds. “Thus did the KGB infiltrate a small yet influential 
American publication.”^^ Arnoni “unwittingly did the 
bidding of the KGB.”^^ 

Amoni became a strong supporter of The Deputy. Not 
only did he write in support of the play in his own journal; 
he also wrote an article for another periodical, American 
Dialog. Beyond discussing Hochhuth’s drama, he made 
inflammatory “factual” assertions that are demonstrably 
false.^^ For instance, Arnoni wrote that “the man who was 
to become Pius XII was deeply involved in the politics of 
ultra-rightist German parties. 

The US Communist Party, secretly financed by the 
KGB, also joined in. When the New York Times Book 
Review decided to do a major, front-page article on The 
Deputy, it explained that it had turned to a Catholic 
scholar (George N. Shuster) and a non-Catholic scholar 
(Robert Gorham Davis). It did not explain that Davis 
had been a member of the Communist Party, who had 
testified before, and “named names” to, the US House 
Committee on Un-American Activities. 

By early 1964, when The Deputy was about to open on 
Broadway, so many religious leaders, politicians, 
diplomats, and others had spoken against it that it was 
somewhat of an international scandal. New York’s 
Cardinal Spellman called The Deputy'^din outrageous 
desecration of the honor of a great and good man.”^^ The 
National Council of Catholic Men and the American 
Jewish Committee tried to talk the television networks out 

of promoting the play.^^ Jewish War Veterans even 
marched on the play’s opening day to boycott it and 
defend the pope’s honor. 

With the play’s ability to open in serious jeopardy, a 
little magazine from San Francisco, with Catholic roots 
and a communist future, took the lead in defending it. In 
fact, without Ramparts magazine. The Deputy might 
never have played on Broadway. (A few years later, 
similar concerns about the historical honesty of 
Hochhuth’s next play. Soldiers, kept it from opening at 
the National Theatre in London.) Hochhuth repaid 
Ramparts by granting the magazine one of the very few 
interviews he gave in those days. It was conducted by 
Judy Stone, sister of “investigative journalist” and spy I. 

F. Stone. 

Ramparts was founded in 1962 by Edward Keating as 
a liberal Catholic quarterly. Very quickly, however, 
Keating became disillusioned with the institutional 
Church.^^ After just a few issues he changed direction, 
saying: “From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy.”^^ 

Keating started by soliciting an article from a 
Louisiana priest who had been critical of the Church’s 
record on race relations. After the article was written, but 
before it went to press, the priest and his bishop both tried 
to recall it. Keating ignored their requests and published 
the piece anyway. In the next issue. Ramparts called for 
a liberalization in the Church’s teaching on contraception. 

Ramparts soon explored the “natural” connection 
between Catholics and the John Birch Society. As 
Ramparts Editor Warren Hinckle explained, Keating went 
from a “respectfully orthodox convert to a brazen anti- 
cleric who would make jokes in public and even in the 
presence of nuns about ‘taking a bite out of the Pope’s 

Of course, Ramparts found it handy to hold onto its 
“Catholic” image as long as it could. Hinckle said he 
talked Keating into defending The Deputy by telling him 
that “he could become famous overnight if he, a Catholic 
publisher, headed a committee to defend the Pope-baiting 
play.” Keating agreed — ^with a vengeance. 

In early 1964, Keating wrote articles supporting The 
Deputy for three different publications: Ramparts, This 
World magazine, and the San Francisco Chronicle?^ He 
also made an important appearance on the WABC 
television program Aew York, New York. Keating’s 
biggest contribution, however, came when he released a 
wartime letter that had been written by a prominent 
member of the Roman Curia, Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, 
to Emanuel Cardinal Suhard, the archbishop of Paris. In 
it, Tisserant wrote: “I fear that history will reproach the 
Holy See for having followed a policy of comfort and 
convenience, and not much else.”^^ 

As soon as Keating released the letter, Tisserant issued 
a statement explaining that it was not about Pope Pius XII 

or the Jews. Tisserant had written it in a fit of anger on the 
day after Italy joined the war, and he was mad that other 
clergy did not make calls for peace similar to those 
frequently made by Pius XII. “The pope’s attitude was 
beyond discussion,” he explained. “My remarks did not 
involve his person, but certain members of the Curia. In 
the dramatic period of the War, and what a period that 
was, Pius XII was able to guide the Church with 
invincible strength.” Tisserant told the New York Times: 
“It seems evident to me that the principles, reaffirmed by 
Pope Pacelli in his first encyclical, and repeated forcefully 
at every circumstance, above all in the Christmas 
messages of the war years, constitute the most concrete 
condemnation of the Hitlerian type of absolutism. In 
fact, the Times published excerpts from an address that 
Tisserant had given during the war in which he praised 
Pius XITs wartime conduct. Nevertheless, the timing of 
Keating’s release garnered significant attention. 

Tisserant’ s letter apparently had been seized from 
Cardinal Suhard’s files by the Gestapo when the Nazis 
took Paris late in World War II. Precisely how it got from 
the Gestapo archives to Keating is unclear. It may have 
fallen into Soviet hands after the war and from there made 
its way to the magazine’s headquarters. Throughout the 
1960s, Ramparts came up with many documents and 
stories that cast the Soviet Union in a good light or its 
enemies in a bad one, and the sources of information were 
often hard to uncover. In his memoirs, editor Warren 

Hinckle acknowledged his own suspicion about the 
source of some of the information he received, suggesting 
that it was either the KGB or a rogue operation from 
inside of the CIA. He eventually took to setting up secret 
meetings and using coded language. 

Beyond convincing Keating to adopt The Deputy as a 
cause, Hinckle played a big role in seeing that the 
Broadway curtain went up on the play. By his own 
account, he invented an “ecumenical conspiracy” in 
support of the play. He formed a committee with a Soviet- 
sounding name: the Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the 
Right of The Deputy to be Heard. He found “a few 
prominent Protestants,” like social activist John C. 
Bennett, to join the committee, but he had trouble finding 
any Catholic leaders who would do so.^^ Hinckle spoke to 
one auxiliary bishop, “highly regarded for his liberalism, 
who told me he would rather endorse a company that put 
the picture of Jesus Christ on packages of contraceptives 
than get involved on the side of the author of The 
Deputy T In desperation, he signed up some laymen he 
called “Catholic window dressing.” The laymen, Gordon 
Zahn and John Howard Griffin, were rewarded by later 
being named associate editors of Ramparts?^ 

Hinckle also drafted two Jews: Rabbi Abraham 
Heschel of the Jewish Theological Seminary and Maxwell 
Geismar, a critic and literary historian. Of Geismar, 
Hinckle wrote: “a wonderful man about whom I cannot 

marshal enough superlatives, who, from our chance 
meeting during the white-heat controversy over The 
Deputy, was to become almost instantly my closest friend, 
confidant, foster father, and soul mate, and the most 
important intellectual influence on the developing 
RampartsT This “most important intellectual influence” 
on Hinckle and Ramparts was an avowed Marxist who 
wrote the introduction to Eldridge Cleaver’s book. Soul 
on Ice, a collection of essays written while Cleaver was in 
prison, serving time for drug dealing and rape. (Cleaver 
later became a senior editor at Ramparts. He also joined 
the Black Panthers, was arrested following a shootout, 
fled to various communist nations, became disenchanted 
with communism, and returned to face charges.) 

Hinckle later admitted that his Ad Hoc Committee to 
Defend the Right of The Deputy to be Heard was “in the 
finest tradition of Potemkin villages.” It “barely had as 
many members as words in its cumbersome title.” It did, 
however, serve his purpose. As he later wrote: “Armed 
with press release, we marched out to do murder in the 

Hinckle, who had never been to New York before, 
sent out provocative press releases and threw a catered 
press conference (likened by many to a party) in New 
York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel. He sent long (and 
expensive) telegram invitations and followed up with 
telegram reminders to “everyone in New York City in 
possession of a pencil or camera.” In length, according to 

Hinckle, the telegrams were “somewhere between the 
Gettysburg Address and the Declaration of Independence, 
and kept the Western Union lady on the telephone for 
nearly three hours, as I dictated to her the names and 
addresses of an eclectic group of invitees drawn at whim 
and whimsy from the Yellow Pages.” Among the 
recipients of the telegrams were not only the major 
publications, but also The American Organist, Bedside 
Nurse, Casket and Sunnyside, Detergent Age, Elementary 
Electronics, Floor Covering Weekly, and dozens of 
similar trade and industry publications.^^ 

It took far more money than a magazine like Ramparts 
would logically be able to devote to such a project to pull 
this off, but Hinckle attracted a huge crowd. One 
photographer said it was the biggest press conference he’d 
seen since Adlai Stevenson conceded in the presidential 
race. When a reporter questioned why no other members 
of the “blue ribbon committee” had shown up besides 
Hinckle and Keating, they said that the “room was too 

Ramparts' defense of The Deputy overshadowed most 
of the news critical of the play in the final days before 
opening night and made sure the curtain went up. It was 
never really clear why the California-based Ramparts 
decided to promote the New York play or how it could 
justify the cost, but subsequent history sheds some light 
on the matter. 

Ramparts dropped most of its Catholic identity shortly 
after The Deputy episode. In October 1964, Keating said 
Ramparts “more or less” came from a Catholic viewpoint, 
adding that the magazine could be described as catholic 
with a small It soon, and routinely, published “no 
holds barred” criticisms of members of the Catholic 
hierarchy — ^unprecedented in the Catholic press at that 
time. In 1965, the president of the Catholic Press 
Association denounced the magazine as “unethical.” In 
December of that year, the magazine described itself as 
“New Left,” not Catholic. Hinckle explained: “there 
weren’t enough Catholic laymen to write for and to buy 
the magazine. Besides, we got bored with just the 

In 1967, Time magazine editorialized: “no other left- 
wing publication in the United States pursues shock more 
recklessly or plays around more with facts. As former 
Ramparts insider Sol Stern explained, '‘Ramparts would 
stretch or deny the truth to sell our counter narrative about 
America and the world.” He also said: “The passions that 
moved us were not those that moved the Founders. We 
were not liberals. We were socialists and anti- 

Ramparts made a deal with the Cuban government to 
publish Che Guevara’s diaries, with an introduction by 
Fidel Castro. According to former editor Sol Stem, the 
agreement “required us to publish a Fidel Castro rant. 

filled with Communist propaganda and denunciations of 
American ‘barbarism.’” Stem explained: 

We believed that the revolution was a great leap forward 
for the soeialist eause. We followed the lead of one of our 
intelleetual heroes, Columbia University soeiologist C. 

Wright Mills, in arguing that Fidel Castro was a new breed 
of revolutionary leader — ^more humanist, more open, even 
more hip than old-style bureaueratie Communists. In faet, 

we imagined Fidel and Che as fellow New Leftists. 

Earlier, Ramparts managing editor Robert Scheer had 
coauthored a book defending Castro’s Cuban revolution. 

Ramparts was an early opponent of the Vietnam War. 
One of the magazine’s best-known covers showed the 
hands of four of its editors burning their draft cards. 
Explaining the magazine’s position in favor of 
withdrawing from Vietnam, Stem said: 

I suppose you might say that sueh a withdrawal would have 
let the Vietnamese people “make their own history.” But 
the real reason that Ramparts was for total withdrawal of 
Ameriean troops was that we wanted the Communists to 
win and were sure that they would. In the view of most of 
the editors, the Communists were Vietnam’s rightful 


Moreover, it was not just America’s involvement in 
Vietnam that drew criticism from the magazine. “Instead 
of urging Americans to take pride in the founding ideals 

of the Republic, Ramparts' editors and writers were 
preoccupied with attacking America’s liberal 

While it no longer claimed a Catholic identity, until at 
least 1969 Ramparts devoted special attention to the 
Catholic Church. According to former communist and 
onetime Ramparts editor Peter Collier, Hinckle 
encouraged articles on “the new spirit of dissent within 
the Catholic Church being.” Articles from this era 
opposed Church teaching on sexuality (especially Pope 
Paul Vi’s teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae), 
complained about abuse of authority by the Catholic 
hierarchy, and promoted leftist “liberation” theology. 
Ramparts religion editor James F. Colaianni identified 
priestly celibacy, authoritarianism, suppression of socially 
aware priests, lack of communication, absence of 
grievance procedures, and summary disciplinary actions 
as some of the greatest structural problems with the 

Ramparts eventually adopted a communist operational 
model, but that proved unsustainable. David Horowitz, 
who was a communist when he edited the magazine late 
in the 1960s, later explained: 

Without a formal hierarchy at Ramparts, every issue that 
came up had to be debated. The need to justify decisions 
was not only time-consuming for us, but at times cruel to 
others, as I discovered when we attempted to reduce the 

mailroom budget at Ramparts and were met with a politieal 
revolt. The mailroom was staffed by members of Newsreel, 
a “eolleetive” of radieals who had made promotional films 
for the Blaek Panthers and the Vieteong. They had no 
respeet for our publieation. The revolution’s peeking order 
had again shifted to the left, and we eould not overeome the 
view that Ramparts was part of the power strueture that 

needed to be overthrown."^^ 

When Ramparts collapsed once and for all in 1975, 
three of its principals formed the leftist magazine Mother 
Jones. They were supported in this effort by the Institute 
for Policy Studies, which has been linked to KGB 
disinformation campaigns. 

CIA documents released under the Freedom of 
Information Act confirm that by 1966, Ramparts was a 
reliable outlet for Soviet propaganda. The CIA eventually 
devoted twelve full-time or part-time officers to 
investigating Ramparts. They identified and investigated 
127 writers and researchers, as well as nearly two hundred 
other people with some link to the magazine who were 
suspected of advancing the Soviet cause."^^ Many of those 
who were investigated have since admitted they were 
using Ramparts to advance communism. That is exactly 
what they were doing when they used the magazine to 
promote The Deputy. 



When the deputy debuted, many reviewers and 
commentators noted its distinct anti-Semitic flavor.^ 

Tmde Weiss-Rosmarin noted that the “play has not one 
Jewish character of strength and nobility.”^ She 
continued: “Jews have as strong a case against The 
Deputy as the Vatican. . . . Mr. Hochhuth has placed upon 
stage ‘negative Jews’ exclusively, Jews who conform to 
the Nazi stereotype.”^ Time magazine reported: 
“Hochhuth, a Protestant who once belonged to Hitler’s 
youth corps, has been denounced as a pro-Communist and 
an anti-Semite.”"^ Ramparts, a friendly outlet with a 
favorable review, observed that Hochhuth had been 

“damned variously as a Nazi, a Communist and an anti- 
Semite.”^ One of Hochhuth’s biographers noted that he 
had difficulty portraying Jews.^ 

The Broadway producer of The Deputy, Herman 
Shumlin, cut out scenes of Jewish collaboration and 
certain Jewish characters from the American production.^ 
Of Hochhuth’s depiction of Jews, Shumlin said: “Why, he 
doesn’t even know what a Jew looks like. ... He has a 
stereotype of them as short men with eyeglasses.”^ Weiss- 
Rosmarin said: “Mr. Hochhuth’s ignorance of Jews shows 
in his choice of those whom he regards as ‘typical’ 
victims of the Nazis. ‘The Manufacturer,’ who spits in the 
face of a Jew to prove that he has nothing in common 
with Jews, is in fact the Jew-hater’s image — and so are 
the other thoroughly unsavory Jews who appear in The 
Deputy Jewish war veterans even marched on the 
play’s Broadway opening, though they reportedly were 
more concerned about the depiction of Pius than that of 

Jewish actor and director Otto Preminger, who had 
directed films dealing with Catholics and Jews,^^ was so 
outraged at Hochhuth that he accused the playwright not 
only of having been a Nazi, but of having been a 
particularly vicious one. Hochhuth responded by 
demanding a retraction and threatening to sue if one were 
not forthcoming.^^ Rather than retracting, Preminger 
reasserted his charge. Hochhuth eventually filed suit for 

five hundred thousand dollars in the Southern District of 
New York, but he allowed the case to be dismissed before 
depositions or any other discovery took place. 

Some have tried to find elements of anti-Semitism in 
the works of the famous nineteenth-century satirist 
Wilhelm Busch that Hochhuth edited in the late 1950s. 
Busch’s satires did sometimes make fun of Jews — ^but 
also of clerics and schoolmasters and just about everyone 
else. Hochhuth argued that Busch was not actually anti- 
Semitic, citing one occasion on which he wrote about an 
innocent Jew hanged for a crime committed by Christians. 
Moreover, in an edition of Busch that he knew would be 
read by children, Hochhuth said that he omitted 
depictions of Jews, “so that German children would not 
mock the Jews.”^^ 

Hochhuth ’s usual response to charges of anti- 
Semitism was: “Whoever reads my play and still 
maintains the opinion that I am an anti-Semite, or Nazi, or 
Communist, that person cannot be answered.” He has 
recalled “with grief’ the visit to his parents’ house during 
the war of a Jewish woman married to a cousin. “She was 
very sweet to us and grateful,” but when she returned 
home she committed suicide upon being called in by the 
Gestapo. In fact, Hochhuth has described the main 
thesis of The Deputy as an accusation of Pius XII and the 
Church for not having done what they could have for the 

How then does one account for the anti-Semitism of 
The Deputyl The most logical conclusion is that it was 
introduced by the strongly anti-Semitic KGB. Anti- 
Semitism permeated the Kremlin in those years, and the 
play fit perfectly into the spirit of West German and 
Soviet policy at that time. 

Given the Jewish backgrounds of both Marx and 
Lenin, as well as the claimed equality with which a 
communist society would treat all people, many Jews 
were attracted to both communist ideology and to the 
Soviet Union, and many prospered there — for a while. 
When Stalin took over and sought to solidify his power by 
engaging in political necrophagy, fostering anti-Semitism 
suited his needs. Perhaps this was an honest reflection of 
his beliefs — after all, he was perfectly willing to throw in 
with Hitler, and he continued persecuting Jews throughout 
his reign — ^but it also served his political needs. Anti- 
Semitism has continued to be a feature of Russian society, 
though there are occasional ebbs and flows. 

Just months before The Deputy was allegedly bom, I 
ended my assignment as acting chief of Romania’s Trade 
Mission to West Germany and head of Romania’s 
intelligence station in that country. There was no longer 
much open or official anti-Semitism there. The last of the 
thirteen Nuremberg Trials (“The High Command Trial”) 
had ended a couple of years earlier, but the hunt for Jew- 
haters continued with ferocity, and even unrepentant anti- 
Semites no longer dared to express their hatred for Jews 

in the Western sphere. 

Assigned as a diplomat to West Germany, I was privy 
to various tales about violence directed at anti-Semites. 
One case was later documented by Benjamin B. Ferencz, 
the chief prosecutor for the United States Army at the 
Einsatzgruppen Trial in West Germany. In a 2005 
interview, Ferencz revealed that during the early postwar 
years, the US Army used to deliver low-ranking Nazi 
suspects to Displaced Persons Camps for the purpose of 
having the suspects executed by the so-called Displaced 
Persons (DPs). According to Ferencz: 

I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the 

steel gurney of the erematorium. They slid him in the oven, 

turned on the heat and took him baek out. Beat him again, 

and put him baek in until he was burned alive. 

It seems most unlikely for Hochhuth, a sane, young, 
and entirely unknown playwright who lived in that post- 
Nazi Germany, and who was only fourteen when the war 
came to an end, to have openly expressed the kind of anti- 
Semitic elements that are found in the original version of 
The Deputy. Far more likely is it that those anti-Semitic 
touches were inserted by Soviet intelligence operatives 
who truly felt that way. 

In I960, when I returned from Germany, there was a 
strong anti-Semitic attitude both in the Kremlin and at the 
top of the KGB’s intelligence community. Jews were 

being removed from the KGB. The Romanian DIE and its 
mother organization, the Securitate, were also in the 
process of quietly removing them. 

Khrushchev loathed Jews even more than Stalin did. 
“It’s in my blood — my serfs blood!” I heard Khrushchev 
say during his six-day vacation in Romania. On that 
occasion, Romanian ruler Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej 
informed Khrushchev that the Israeli foreign intelligence 
service was prepared to pay Bucharest secretly in dollars 
for each Jew that would be allowed to emigrate. As far as 
Dej knew, that was a first in the Soviet bloc, and he did 
not have the courage to approve such a delicate operation 
all by himself. 

Initially, Khrushchev exploded in a deluge of 
invectives against the “swindler jidani usurers” who 
believed “they could buy us the way they bought 
America.” (Jidan was the worst Romanian pejorative for a 
Jew, and Khrushchev relished using it.) During dinner, 
however, the Soviet ruler changed his mind. He insisted 
that Dej take products, not cash, from the jidani, so that 
even if the operation eventually leaked out, it would not 
look like a sale of slaves. Khrushchev’s choice of quid- 
pro-quo barter object was livestock farms, as he 
considered himself an expert in the agricultural field. 

“Pigs for pigs,” was the conclusion of General 
Sakharovsky — the head of the all-powerful Soviet 
espionage service, who had accompanied Khrushchev to 

Bucharest. So Romania started getting pig farms from 
Israel in exchange for exit visas for Romanian Jews.^^ 

In the early 1970s, when I became the deputy head of 
the DIE, General Sakharovsky — still my de facto boss — 
took me on a tour of the infamous KGB interrogation 
complex in Moscow, called Lefortovo, to see a secret 
exhibit entitled “A Hundred Years of War against 
Zionism.” There, in that forbidding-looking prison built in 
1881, 1 was shown the torture chamber used to extort 
confessions from the “Jewish anarchists” seized by the 
Okhrana (predecessor of the KGB) after Tsar Alexander 
II was assassinated in 1882. 1 set foot into the office 
where Martyn Latsis, one of Feliks Dzerzhinsky’s 
deputies, signed the documents authorizing the Cheka to 
shoot tens of thousands of “bourgeois Jews” who were 
“sabotaging the people’s revolution.” I saw the cell where 
in 1938, the Cheka, now upgraded to GPU 
(Gosudarstvennoye Politicheskoye Upravleniye, or State 
Political Directorate, a revealing name change), forced 
the founder of the Third International (an international 
communist organization), Nikolai Bukharin, to write a 
confession of “dastardly crimes” committed on behalf of 
American Zionism.^ ^ 

I also saw the cell where Swedish diplomat Raoul 
Wallenberg, who had saved thousands of Jews from the 
gas chambers during World War II, had been secretly held 
— and killed — ^by the KGB, after being kidnapped from 

Hungary in 1945. 

Over the years, the Russian/Soviet/Russian political 
police changed its name many times, from Oprichnina to 
Preobrazhenskiy Prikaz, to Okhrana to Cheka, to GPU, to 
OGPU, to NKVD, to NKGB, to MGB, to MVD, to KGB, 
to MSB, to FSK, to today’s FSB. All the while, Lefortovo 
prison remained unchanged, as a monument to the 
organization’s unchanging hatred of the Jews. 

In 1992, the “new” KGB of the post-Soviet Russia 
arrested two Russian scientists of Jewish descent, Vil 
Mirzayanov and Dr. Vladimir Uglev. They were sent to 
Lefortovo. The charge related to their simultaneous 
publication of articles in the Russian Moscow News and 
the American press asserting that Russia was secretly 
working to develop a nerve gas, in violation of national 
laws and international commitments.^^ To help the “new” 
KGB prosecute the case against these two “Jewish spies,” 
Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin (a long- 
time communist and former Soviet official), signed a 
retroactive decree in May 1993 that made the revelations 
of the two scientists a crime.^^ 

In May 1993, Will Englund, an American 
correspondent in Moscow, was summoned by the same 
“new” KGB to be interrogated about his connections with 
the two scientists. The Western world was astonished 
when it learned that Englund was called to the infamous 
Lefortovo, which for seventy-five years had been the 

gateway to communist firing squads and gulags. Even 
more telling was the communist seal with hammer and 
sickle that still adorned the interrogation room.^^ 



The DEPUTY is just another Potemkin village. Its producer, 
Erwin Piscator, matured politically and professionally in 
the service of the Soviet Union, where all forms of the 
arts, including theater, were supposed to dish up the 
Kremlin’s dezinformatsiya needs. Soviet composer Dmitri 
Shostakovich explained: “By the late 1920s the 
honeymoon with the Soviet government was over for 
genuine artists. ... In order to be in favor, to receive 
commissions and live peacefully, one had to get into state 
harness and plug away.”^ To be branded as one who did 
not conform to the Soviet line could be lethal.^ “For many 
years, the most gifted and sensitive of the Soviet poets. 

novelists and dramatists either were silent or wrote ‘for 
the drawer’ — secretly, or only for the intimacy of family 
and trusted friends.”^ 

In April 1932, the Soviet government and the 
Communist Party issued an epic decree for Soviet artists 
“On the Reorganization of Art and Literary 

This decree placed artistic control into the hands of 
two new groups: the Union of Soviet Writers and the 
Union of Soviet Composers."^ Through these unions, 
Stalin secured an unprecedented degree of control over 
the arts and the artists. 

Stalin strengthened and perfeeted the system of “ereative 
unions.” Within the framework of this system, the right to 
work (and therefore to live as an artist) eomes only to those 
offieially registered and approved. The ereative unions of 
writer, eomposers, artists, et al. were formed, beginning in 
1923, as bureaueratie organizations with strietly defined 
ranks and with equally strong aeeountability and eonstant 
eross-eheeking. Every organization had a braneh of 
“seeurity serviees,” or seeret poliee, as well as innumerable 
unoffieial informers. . . . Any attempt to eireumvent one’s 
union ended badly: various forms of pressure and 
repression were always ready. Moreover, obedienee was 
rewarded. Behind this well-oiled and smoothly running 
meehanism stood the figure of Stalin, an inevitable 
presenee that often gave events a grotesque, tragieomie 


That same year, on October 26, Stalin also coined the 
term “socialist realism.”^ As described by a Soviet author: 
“Socialist realism implies an art imbued with communist 
ideology, that is to say, its very core is a deliberate 
purposeful struggle for the victory of communism, an 
evaluation of life in the light of communist ideals.”^ An 
American scholar explained: “Socialist realism became an 
officially imposed esthetic standard which every art in the 
USSR, without a single exception, was forced to follow.”^ 

In order for a literary work to pass the test of socialist 
realism, it had to coincide with the Kremlin’s interests 
and to portray Soviet life in an optimistic manner, 
“showing ‘positive heroes’ — miners overfilling their 
production quotas, military heroes, or stalwart Soviet 
women heroically and literally laying the brick and mortar 
of a new society.”^ Inappropriate poetry could lead to the 
poet’s arrest. Stalin even had several painters shot.^^ 
Ballet was required to embody the ideals of heroism, 
duty, honor, comradeship, and other virtues of the new 
Soviet citizen. The Soviets even took control over the 
development of circus performers. 

In early 1936, the Central Executive Committee and 
the Council of People’s Commissars established an All- 
Union Committee for Affairs of the Arts in the Council of 
People’s Commissars. All theatrical productions, the 
cinema industry, and all institutions fostering music, 
painting, sculpture, or any other form of art came under 

the authority of this group. At each venue, the theatrical 
director and the artistic director had to prepare a yearly 
repertoire plan of all productions and submit it to the 
committee for approval. The committee also evaluated 
each new production after dress rehearsal. 

Stalin and Andrey Zhdanov, the party ideologue for 
cultural matters, determined the official attitude toward 
various plays, ballets, literature, and other art forms. 
Zhdanov announced, “The central committee of 
Bolsheviks demands beauty and refinement from 
music. Zhdanov argued that “the Soviet Army is 
victorious, we are advancing on Europe, and Soviet 
literature must be an aid in this, it must attack bourgeois 
culture, which is in a state of confusion and decay.” 
Zhdanov wanted to strike a blow at “harmful influences” 
such as “the spirit of negative criticism, despair, and 

Grigory Yevseyevich Zinovyev, chairman of the 
Petrograd City Soviet, ordered all the opera houses in the 
city (today’s St. Petersburg) to be closed. He explained 
that the proletariat did not need opera houses. “They are a 
heavy burden for the proletariat. We Bolsheviks can’t 
carry the heavy burden any more.”^^ Stalin also shut 
down at least one other opera house. 

One “typical episode” of the regime’s approach to 
those who dared to defy it involved a popular 
director/actor/composer named Vsevolod Emily evich 

Meyerhold. In 1938, his theater was shut down on Stalin’s 
personal command, and “an anti-Meyerhold campaign 
was smeared all over the pages of the press. Later, 
Meyerhold “disappeared without a trace in the years of 
the ‘great terror. 

Like everything else, radio was also heavily censored 
in the Soviet Union. “Everyone knows that you can’t 
appear on radio if your text hasn’t been passed by the 
censor. Not one, but almost ten censors, each of whom 
signs. If the papers aren’t signed, no one will let you near 
a microphone. Who knows what you might say to the 
whole country?”^ ^ 

Under this regime, many Soviet theatrical productions 
intentionally promoted anticlericalism.^^ For instance, 
when originally produced, the ballet Paganini depicted a 
tormented artist who sold himself to the devil in exchange 
for perfection in the ability to play the violin. When 
produced later, the choreographer purposely shifted 
emphasis, “to make the true forces of evil in the plot to be 
the Catholic Church, represented by black-clad hooded 
figures who pierce Paganini with their violin bows while 
a cardinal stands in the background, wielding a huge 
cross. As author Mary Grace Swift explained: 

Closely linked with this element, an antireligious strain 
appears whieh tries to make religion look either silly or 
sinister, whether dealing with Moslems or Christians. 

Figures representing religion — ^knights, monks, or 

characters enforcing Moslem eustoms — are depleted as 
instruments of oppression against a heroine who stands for 
all the bright, patriotie virtues of her partieular national 


If the art in question did not serve the party’s interests, 
it was banned. “Beginning in 1946, one Party resolution 
after another was proclaimed, containing attacks on 
books, plays. Moreover, reproduction of forbidden 
books was made virtually impossible, because all the 
printing presses were taken over by the state.^^ 

Tikhon Khrennikov was appointed by Stalin to 
administer Soviet music. In 1948, at the first Composers’ 
Congress, he proclaimed: “armed with clear Party 
directives, we will put a final end to any manifestations of 
anti-People formalism and decadence, no matter what 
defensive coloration they may take on.”^^ The congress 
unanimously condemned several leading composers for 
being “formalists. This, of course, led to many 
compositions praising Stalin and the Soviet Union. As 
one composer said: “They sang about Stalin the eagle . . . ; 

I think there must have been some twenty thousand 
[songs], maybe more. It would be interesting to work out 
how much money our leader paid out for songs about our 

“Stalin, who had a superlative appreciation of the 
propaganda potential of art, paid special attention to film. 
He saw the Soviet movies had a powerful emotional 

effect. Stalin “wanted our film industry to put out only 
masterpieces. He was convinced that under his brilliant 
leadership and personal guidance it would do so.”^^ He 
did not hesitate to use his authority. “If he ordered a film 
made, they’d make it. If he ordered them to stop shooting, 
they stopped shooting. That happened many times. If 
Stalin ordered a finished film destroyed, they’d destroy it. 
That happened more than once too.”^^ 

The Soviets were also happy to use American art 
forms to advance their cause in the United States. By the 
1940s, American communists had fully embraced and 
significantly co-opted folk music. The American 
Communist Party was essentially an agency of the Soviet 
government. “Folk singers had become a ceremonial part 
of Communist Party meetings. The effect that they 
wanted with the music was “national in form and 
revolutionary in content. 

Folk singers in the Soviet Union did not fare as well. 
Native art was considered counterrevolutionary because, 
like most ancient art, it was religious in nature. As such it 
was rooted out in the 1920s and 1930s.^^ In some cases, 
this was done with great ruthlessness. 

Since time immemorial, folk singers have wandered along 
the roads of the Ukraine. They’re ealled lirniki and 
banduristy there. They were almost always blind. ... and 
defenseless people, but no one ever touehed or hurt them. 
Hurting a blind man — what eould be lower? 

And then in the mid thirties the First All-Ukrainian 
Congress of Limiki and Banduristy was announeed, and all 
the folk singers had to gather and diseuss what to do in the 
future. “Life is better, life is merrier,” Stalin had said. The 
blind men believed it. They eame to the Congress from all 
over the Ukraine, from tiny, forgotten villages. There were 
several hundred of them at the Congress, they say. It was a 
living museum, the eountry’s living history. All its songs, 
all its musie and poetry. And they were almost all shot, 

almost all those pathetie blind men killed.^ ^ 

The folk singers were killed because collectivization 
was under way, the Soviets had wiped out the kulaks as a 
class, and these singers were singing songs of dubious 
content. The songs weren’t approved by the censors; they 
really could not even be submitted for approval. They 
were not written down. “You can’t hand a blind man a 
corrected and approved text and you can’t write him an 
order either. You have to tell everything to a blind man. 
That takes too long. And you can’t file away a piece of 
paper, and there’s not time anyway. Collectivization. 
Mechanization. It was easier to shoot them.”^^ 

Of course, by eliminating these bearers of oral 
tradition, the Soviet leadership also wiped out a 
significant part of their culture. “When they shoot a folk 
singer or a wandering storyteller, hundreds of great 
musical works die with him. Works that had never been 
written down. They die forever, irrevocably, because 
another singer represents other songs. 

Eventually, the Soviet leaders wanted to show the 
world that they had native culture, so they invented a new 
folk singer/poet. Dzhambul Dzhabayev’s poetry was 
supposedly written in Kazakh and then translated into 
Russian. Children studied his work in school. The only 
thing was Dzhabayev did not write songs, and the 
translators did not read Kazakh. “The so-called 
translations of the nonexistent poems were written by 
Russian poets and they didn’t even ask our great folk 
singer for permission.”^^ Real oral tradition was replaced 
by stories and songs that served the party’s needs, much 
as false histories of Catholic leaders would replace the 
truth about them. 

In the 1950s, after Stalin’s death, Soviet artists were 
often sent overseas to spread the Communist Party’s 
message. In 1954, several well-known Russian performers 
put on a series of concerts in England to inaugurate 
“British-Soviet Friendship Month.” Their performances 
were “reminiscent of the old prerevolutionary ‘meetings,’ 
for the spectators were urged to buy certain newspapers; 
to begin certain societies; and the dancers performed 
against a background of British and Soviet flags, sharing 
the stage with various officials and members of the 
diplomatic corps, including . . . the Soviet Ambassador. 

“To Marx, religion was an opiate of the people, and 
the USSR theatrical world has stressed this concept. 
Certain ballet productions have purposely made religion 

appear both stupid and Of course, the choice of 

productions was political, not artistic. 

It is somewhat amazing that artists of the nation whieh 
produeed Swan Lake or Firebird would voluntarily produee 
Native Fields or Tatiana without offieial urging. The 
example has been eited where the Ministry of Culture 
ordered in 1958 that eaeh opera and ballet theatre should 
produee one eontemporary ballet a year. If a theatre should 
have other plans, the Party ehief is on hand, in the theatre, 

to see that sueh direetives are enforeed."^^ 

There was no such thing as an independent journal in 
the Soviet Union. As the Anti-Defamation League 
explained in 1961, “Everything published in the USSR for 
popular consumption is rigidly controlled by the state, and 
every opinion expressed in a newspaper is equivalent to 
an official opinion. One Soviet author complained: 
“tsarist censorship practices pale in comparison with the 
policy of the Soviet government. 

Erwin Piscator and his framing of Pius XII in The 
Deputy were products of this society. 



In 1966, Erwin Piscator, who had transformed 
Hochhuth’s eight-hour script about the Vatican into the 
explosive play called Der Stellvertreter, departed this 
world. Rolf Hochhuth needed a new researcher, and 
David Irving came into his life. Irving was an English 
writer who specialized in the military history of World 
War II, and he became Hochhuth’s closest collaborator 
and lifelong friend. 

In 1969, during a visit to Germany, Irving met Robert 
Kempner, one of the American prosecutors at Nuremberg. 
Later, in a letter submitted to FBI director J. Edgar 
Hoover, Kempner said Irving was a “young man, who 
made a nervous and rather mentally dilapidated 
impression,” and who expressed many “anti-American 

and anti-Jewish statements.”^ In a speech delivered in 
Canada, Irving did indeed make a mentally dilapidated 
impression, vociferously articulating his contempt and 
hatred for people who spoke about the Holocaust: 

Ridicule alone isn’t enough; you’ve got to be tasteless 
about it. You’ve got to say things like “More women died 
on the baek seat of Edward Kennedy’s ear at 
Chappaquiddiek than in the gas ehambers at Ausehwitz.” 

Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m 
forming an assoeiation espeeially dedieated to all these 
liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in 
these eoneentration eamps, it’s ealled the Ausehwitz 
Survivors, Survivors of the Holoeaust and Other Liars, A- 
S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but 
you’ve got to be tasteless beeause these people deserve our 


Later Irving published Hitler 's War, a book he said 
was aimed at cleaning away the “years of grime and 
discoloration from the faqade of a silent and forbidding 
monument,” to reveal the real Hitler, whose reputation, 
Irving claimed, had been slandered.^ Irving portrayed 
Hitler as a rational, intelligent politician whose only goal 
was to increase Germany’s prosperity.'^ Irving faulted 
Winston Churchill for the escalation of war,^ claimed that 
Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust, and offered 
£1,000 to anyone who could find any written command 
from Hitler ordering the Holocaust.^ 

In a footnote, Irving introduced the thesis that a letter 
sent by the president of the World Zionist Organization, 
Chaim Weizmann, to Neville Chamberlain on September 
3, 1939, pledging to support the Allied war effort 
represented in fact a “Jewish declaration of war against 
Germany,” which therefore justified the German 
“internment” of European JewsJ Irving’s anti-Semitism 
went so far as to denounce The Diary of Anne Frank as a 

In 1967, a year after Hochhuth and Irving joined 
together, they produced a new show titled Soldiers, 
Necrology on Geneva. Like The Deputy, Soldiers also 
dealt with dead people unable to defend themselves (or so 
Hochhuth and Irving believed). The focal character was 
another strong anticommunist, Polish general Wladyslaw 
Sikorski. During World War II, Sikorski took refuge in 
London, joined the Allied forces, and became prime 
minister in exile of Soviet-occupied Poland, commander 
in chief of the Polish Armed Forces, and a staunch 
advocate of the Polish cause. He was killed on July 4, 
1943, when his plane crashed into the sea immediately 
upon takeoff from Gibraltar. 

People around the world speculated that he had been 
killed by Moscow, which considered Sikorski an enemy 
because he had requested the International Red Cross to 
investigate the slaughter of thousands of Polish prisoners 
at the Katyn massacre during the war. Stalin claimed that 

the Katyn atrocity had been committed by the Germans, 
but Sikorski refused to accept Stalin’s explanation. 
Therefore, on April 16, 1943, Moscow broke relations 
with Sikorski’ s government- in-exile, and Stalin labeled 
Sikorski a traitor.^ 

According to Soldiers, however, Sikorski was 
murdered by British agents on the orders of Winston 
Churchill. The play claimed that the agents entered the 
plane Sikorski was on and killed him (and others, 
including his daughter, two members of Parliament, and a 
dozen other innocent people) prior to takeoff. The alleged 
reason was that Sikorski ’s war with Moscow was creating 
a problem for the Anglo-American-Soviet alliance. The 
assassins then abandoned the plane. The pilot, who was 
allegedly in cahoots with the killers, intentionally crashed 
the plane (after taking special precautions for his personal 
safety), making it look as though Sikorski had been killed 
by the impact. Hochhuth claimed that British agents later 
killed the pilot to keep him quiet. 

Time magazine called this theory “a tenuous personal 
speculation indicative only of a common European 
fascination with conspiratorial-plot theories of history. 

A leading Polish literary critic called the allegations 

At a press conference taking place at the Berlin 
premiere of Soldiers, Hochhuth was asked to expand on 
the “sources of his secret knowledge” about Sikorski’s 

assassination. Hochhuth claimed to have a wealth of 
information, but he was evasive when asked about where 
it came from. Sometimes it was from a retired British 
intelligence man; other times it was from a Polish lady. 

Central to Hochhuth’ s case, of course, was that the 
surviving pilot, Edward Prchal, had been in on the 
assassination. Hochhuth claimed that after five years of 
painstaking research, he had “conclusive evidence” that 
the pilot had survived the crash but died at the hands of 
the “Old Firm” (meaning a front organization for British 
intelligence) in a staged knife fight in Chicago. His theory 
was that Prchal, although in on the plans, had been killed 
by the “Old Firm” to ensure that he would not reveal the 

In December 1968, Sir David Frost, the famous British 
journalist, organized a television interview with the 
producers of Soldiers, which had recently opened in 
Fondon. Frost had been hosting serious interviews with 
major political figures, the most notable being the one 
with Richard Nixon, which was the basis for the 2006 
play and 2008 film Frost/Nixon. Hochhuth declined to 
appear in Frost’s interview, citing his inability to speak 
English (despite Frost’s offer of a translator), but David 
Irving and theater critic Kenneth Tynan were there as part 
of what Frost called “the Hochhuth contingent.” 

With persistence. Frost had located the pilot Prchal, 
still very much alive in the United States. Much to the 

chagrin of the Hochhuth contingent, Prchal appeared in 
the flesh on Frost’s stage during the television interview. 
He said, “Mr. Hochhuth is producing a slander of the 

According to Frost, “the credibility of the Hochhuth- 
Tynan-Irving case went from bad to worse.” The 
Hochhuth contingent maintained that the man who 
appeared on the stage was an imposter. Frost proved that 
he was indeed the surviving pilot portrayed in Soldiers. 

After the show. Frost asked the guests to return for a 
second show. Taping went so poorly for the Hochhuth 
contingent that they tried to stop the second show from 
being broadcast. Eventually Prchal won a £50,000 lawsuit 
against the playwright, and later investigation would 
prove there was no substance to any of the wild claims in 
Soldiers. Hochhuth’ s biographer noted: “Hochhuth’ s ... 
accusation resulted in a libel action brought by the 
surviving pilot of the crashed aircraft which involved the 
author [Hochhuth] and the producers of the play in 
London in a costly financial settlement.” 

A few perceptive people noted a similarity between 
The Deputy and Soldiers, in that both plays slandered 
famous heroic figures who happened to be already dead. 
Both plays also calumniated men who had been staunch 

Soldiers, like The Deputy, caused quite a controversy. 
It was initially banned in England. It also led actor Carlos 

Thompson — ^who had admired Hochhuth and was at first 
interested in helping bring the play to the stage and 
perhaps film — to write a book exposing the shoddy 
research and ridiculous theories Hochhuth had set forth. 
After concluding his research, Thompson summed up 
how his attitude toward Hochhuth had changed. Sitting at 
his desk and looking out the window at the Swiss Alps, 
Thompson says he was: 

. . . jolted to the final realization that my pin-up boy of 
yesterday, the enlightened “eonseienee of our soeiety” in 
whom I had believed and who had shed light on the 
unimportanee of my own writing — he, the “good” German 
Geist, the spokesman of the new Germany, was dead. From 
the ashes rose a man who asked me to stand before the 

world press and perjure myself on his behalf 

Thompson’s research showed Hochhuth as “semi- 
paranoid” and all-too-eager to believe anything he was 
told. Describing what he called a “sad example of 
Hochhuth’ s methods,” Thompson wrote about the 
“tangled gyrations of Hochhuth’ s thinking,” adding that 
the playwright’s mind “worked along dangerously 
greased rails.” Hochhuth was very quick to rewrite 
sections of his play and even to eliminate characters, and 
he would shift his premise based upon nothing more than 
(and often less than) a rumor. 

After a discussion with the British actor Laurence 
Olivier and others about suggested changes to Soldiers, 

including eliminating characters, Hochhuth readily 
agreed. Olivier’s wife, Joan Plowright, who was present, 
remarked: “There is one thing we all agree on. I’m sure. 
We have never seen an author so little married to his 
words.” She was unaware that they may not have been 
his words to start with. 

Hochhuth originally claimed that Churchill had caused 
Sikorski to be killed owing to the latter’s strong stance 
against the Soviets, which was endangering Churchill’s 
new alliance with Stalin. When an article in the Moscow 
New Times (an undercover KGB magazine published in 
English for Western consumption) made a different 
argument, he immediately adopted the Soviet line and 
suggested that Churchill had had Sikorski killed owing to 
his pro-Soviet policies. Hochhuth did another flip-flop 
when discussing the British government’s desire to 
implicate a certain participant in the plane crash. He gave 
inconsistent answers not only about his theories and the 
source of his information, but even about why he was 
living in Switzerland instead of Germany. (Evidently he 
was afraid of being sued in West Germany, although he 
had been quick to sue others he believed had libeled him.) 

Hochhuth ’s research for Soldiers was sloppy at best, 
and his analysis was even worse. Julius Firt, one of many 
witnesses interviewed by Carlos Thompson, said: “I find 
it difficult to understand what Hochhuth is really after. 

His play on the Pope was tendentious enough, but this 

one, marshalling non-existent evidence to prove that 
Britain killed Sikorski, is one big step further.” Polish 
Prince Lubomirski, another witness, said: “Hochhuth had 
nothing, and construes everything to his advantage. 
Yugoslavian dissident Milovan Djilas (whom Hochhuth 
tried to invoke when questions arose about his honesty) 
said: “Hochhuth’ s quotation of me is a complete 
distortion.” Stanislaw Lepinowski said: '‘The Sunday 
Times quoted Mr. Hochhuth and through him, quoted me. 
What I had said to him was totally misrepresented.”^^ 
Lepinowski went on to say that “after reading his play, I 
find that it is the exact opposite of what he told me.”^^ 
One witness said: “I have begun to ask myself if 
Hochhuth does not suffer from delusions. He remembers 
visiting me in my home, which he never did, and 
conversations between us that never took place. 
Thompson wrote: “It was becoming difficult to follow 
Rolfs gyrations of theory- within-theory.”^^ Another time 
he wrote: “Rolf was beginning to tire. He was forgetting 
his own invention. When a witness came forth to 
contradict his theory, Hochhuth attributed it to British 
disinformation.^^ Another time he suggested that 
witnesses were faking amnesia.^^ Yet another witness 
said that Hochhuth simply refused to consider the theory 
that the Soviets were behind the general’s death.^^ 
Responding to allegations from Sikorski’ s countrymen 
that undercut his thesis, Hochhuth said: “all the Poles in 


When pressed on his sources, Hochhuth always 
dodged the issue. Rather than providing witnesses or 
documents, he claimed to have deposited his proof in a 
bank vault to be opened fifty years later. He said: “I know 
that in fifty years my play will be unassailable.” Those 
fifty years will soon be up, but there is surely no one alive 
today who expects Hochhuth to produce any new 
revelations anytime in the future. 

Anyone who carefully reviews Hochhuth’ s alleged 
justifications for the accusations that he has made must 
conclude that he simply does not care about the truth. 
Time magazine wrote of him: 

One cut above a crank and several cuts below a thinker, 

Hochhuth seems very much like those dedicated slaphappy 

few who insist that Bacon wrote Shakespeare.^^ 

Of course, perhaps he kept shifting his story and 
misremembering facts because he did not write all the 
parts of his play. Moreover, there is no apparent reason to 
suppose that Hochhuth behaved any differently when 
writing Soldiers than he did when writing The Deputy or 
anything else. 

In 1978, Hochhuth published Eine Liebe in 
Deutschland (“A Love in Germany”), a novel about an 
affair between a Polish prisoner of war and a German 
woman in World War II, which became the play Juris ten 

(“Judges”) and the film Ein Furchtbarer Jurist (“A 
Terrible Judge”). The novel stirred up a debate about the 
Nazi past of Hans Filbinger, a high-ranking member of 
West Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic 
Union and the sitting minister president of Baden- 

Filbinger, Hochhuth’s target, was a lifelong Catholic 
and a strong anti-communist. He campaigned under the 
slogan “Freedom instead of Socialism.” Filbinger had 
been a German Navy lawyer and judge during World War 
II. Hochhuth’s writings asserted that Filbinger was 
responsible for the death sentence given to the German 
sailor Walter Groger in a British prisoner-of-war camp 
when the war was already over. According to Hochhuth, 
Filbinger sentenced Groger to death and then borrowed 
twelve guns from the British for the execution. On these 
points Hochhuth was demonstrably wrong. 

The military records at the German Federal Archive, 
Komelimunster bei Aachen, document the following facts 
relating to the Groger case. The German sailor Walter 
Groger was serving in Nazi-occupied Oslo, Norway when 
he tried to desert in December 1943. He was immediately 
caught and consigned to various military prisons as his 
case dragged out. In early 1944, the German Navy 
planned to sentence him to eight years imprisonment, but 
superior officers in the German Navy, including the 
commander, demanded the death penalty for him, after 
reviewing his file. It was at this point that Filbinger 

entered the case as a Navy judge, but only to process the 
decision that had already been made. On March 16, 1945, 
still during the war, Groger was sentenced to death for 
desertion, and the sentence was carried out two hours 

The storm over Hochhuth’s accusation forced 
Filbinger to resign from office, but the debate dragged on 
for the rest of Filbinger’ s life. When he finally passed 
away in 2007, Baden- Wiirttemberg minister president 
Gunther Oettinger said: 

There is no legal deeision given by Hans Filbinger that 
eaused a person to lose his life. And in the ease of those 
legal deeisions that are held against him, he either did not 
have the authority to make the deeision, or else he was not 
free to make the deeision that many people now allege he 

In response to this, Hochhuth called Filbinger a 
“sadistic Nazi” who long after the capitulation had 
personally sentenced the sailor Groger to death. 

Two German newspapers said Hochhuth had lied. In 
his response, which appeared on April 13, 2007, in the 
Silddeutsche Zeitung, Hochhuth characterized their 
statements as “pure invention” and complained about the 
undermining of the “tragedy of the sailor Walter Groger” 
whom Hans Filbinger “personally ordered to be killed 
while a British prisoner of war.” The online version of 
Hochhuth’s article, entitled “The Liar,” was deleted by 

the Suddeutsche Zeitung one day after it appeared, with 
the following comment: 

The writer Rolf Hoehhuth’s elaim that appeared in the 
Suddeutsche Zeitung of April 13, 2007 (“The Liar”) — ^that 
Filbinger had senteneed Groger to be killed while he was a 
British prisoner-of-war — is false. Hoehhuth’s well-known 
statement of 1978 that “even in a British prison eamp 
[Filbinger] went after a German sailor with Nazi laws,” 
aetually is based on the Petzold ease. . . Hoehhuth eould not 

be reaehed for eomment.^^ 

Hoehhuth seems to have “confused” the Groger case 
with that of an artillerist named Petzold, but even he was 
sentenced to only six months prison, not death. Filbinger 
was but one more victim of Hoehhuth’ s imagination. 

The Deputy, Soldiers, and Eine Liebe in Deutschland 
all became movies, making Hoehhuth a very wealthy 
man. In Basel, Switzerland, he and his first wife, 
Marianne, bought and lived in the famous house that had 
belonged to the nineteenth-century German philosopher 
Friedrich Nietzsche. When his career obliged him to move 
to Vienna, Hoehhuth lived a few hundred yards from the 
imperial Burgtheater, in an apartment on Burggasse in the 
house that had once been Sigmund Freud’ s.^^ 

Hoehhuth has lived a life of extravagant luxury, but he 
seems to have remained “noticeably paranoid and 
nervous.” According to his friend and researcher, David 

Early in July 1 966 ... he came to England for what was to 
prove his one and only visit. I wrote a whole page profile of 
him for the Evening Standard. He stayed with us in 
Paddington. Since my father was . . . occupying the guest 
room ... we bedded Rolf down in our drawing room for a 
few days. At two o’clock one morning I had occasion to go 
down and look for a file — Rolf jack-knifed bolt upright in 
bed, terrified and shouting with fear at this unexpected 
intruder. “What is it? Who are you? What do you want?” 

He was pathologically fearful for his own safety. 

Hochhuth was constantly worried that he, Irving, and 
Thompson (while he was still working with Hochhuth) 
would be targeted by British intelligence agents from 
what he called “the Old Firm.” He said: “The men who 
killed Sikorski still sit at the Old Firm. I am constantly 
worried.”^"^ Thompson thought to himself, “And well you 
must be, if you go about life in this fashion. How many 
lies had he told me already?”^^ 

What do we really know about The Deputy''^ purported 
playwright, who set off an enormous storm of controversy 
and was suddenly catapulted onto the world stage of fame 
and fortune? Rolf Hochhuth is generally described as a 
very leftist writer, but his statements about his beliefs are 
often completely contradictory. 

Hochhuth was born on April Fools Day, 1931, in 

Eschwege, a small city in Hessen, which after World War 
II would lie on the western side of the border dividing 
West and East Germany. His father owned a small shoe 
factory, and the family was middle-class and Protestant. 
Rolf had been in a Nazi children’s organization 
(Jungvolk), but that was what all children did, and there is 
no indication that the family was particularly pro- or anti- 
Nazi during the war. He graduated from secondary school 
(Mittlere Reife) in 1948 but did not go on to complete the 
academic Abitur (high school graduation). 

Hochhuth reports that he attended a trade school to 
learn the book business, but that he essentially educated 
himself as he went along. He eventually came to consider 
himself something of an authority on postwar German 
literature. As a young man he began writing poetry and 
short stories. Between 1950 and 1955 he held jobs as an 
assistant in various book-related businesses in several 
West German cities, while auditing courses at nearby 
universities and starting to write poems and stories. 

Hochhuth has been generally disdainful of professorial 
writers — those with an Abitur degree — ^but he developed a 
taste for exciting, well-written literature. In 1955 he got a 
job with the very large Bertelsmann publishing house, 
working as a reader in their Lesering department (a sort of 
book-of-the-month club). He edited several books and 
story collections, including a collection of the popular 
Wilhelm Busch. Hochhuth claims that in 1959 his Busch 
edition sold more than a million copies, so the publisher 

gave him a special three-month leave of absence, during 
which time he worked on some of his own writing and 
took his wife (the first of four) on a trip to Rome. It was 
on that trip that he claims to have met a secret, unnamed 
bishop who gave him the information that inspired The 

Hochhuth has said that as a young man he was 
extremely upset when stories of the Nazi killings began to 
come out, and he could not understand why so many good 
Germans had done nothing about it. Nevertheless, 
Hochhuth made a long partnership with, and did 
everything in his power to protect, David Irving, a 
fanatical denier of Hitler’s Holocaust. 

Irving raised again his profile as a Holocaust denier in 
2000, when he sued Deborah Lipstadt of Emory 
University and Penguin Books over Lipstadf s book 
Denying the Holocaust. Irving complained that the book 
accused him of being “a Nazi apologist and an admirer of 
Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of facts and to 
the manipulation of documents in support of his 
contention that the Holocaust did not take place.” Irving 
said this was part of a “concerted attempt to ruin his 
reputation as an historian.” 

At trial, Irving invoked his correspondence with 
Hochhuth (who called to lend moral support) as evidence 
of his broadmindedness. The defense, however, rested on 
the “truth of the matter asserted.” Legally, that more or 

less means “y^s, we said it, but it’s true.” 

Specifically, the defense argued that, “Irving is 
discredited as an historian by reason of his denial of the 
Holocaust and by reason of his persistent distortion of the 
historical record so as to depict Hitler in a favourable 
light.” The British judge sided with the defendants: 

I find myself unable to aeeept Irving’s eontention that his 
falsifieation of the historieal reeord is the produet of 
innoeent error or misinterpretation or ineompetenee on his 
part. . . . [I]t appears to me that the eorreet and inevitable 
inferenee must be that for the most part the falsifieation of 
the historieal reeord was deliberate and that Irving was 
motivated by a desire to present events in a manner 
eonsistent with his own ideologieal beliefs even if that 
involved distortion and manipulation of historieal evidenee. 

The New York Times proclaimed: “The verdict puts an 
end to the pretense that Mr. Irving is anything but a self- 
promoting apologist for Hitler.” 

Irving was again in the news and in court when he was 
arrested by Austrian authorities in 2005. According to the 
BBC, Irving was in Austria to “give a lecture to a far-right 
student fraternity” when he was picked up on charges 
stemming from talks he had given there in 1989. Other 
sources also noted that at the time of the arrest, Irving was 
returning from visiting Rolf Hochhuth. 

Hochhuth defended Irving as he faced the charges. In 
a newspaper interview he called Irving “an honorable 

man,” a “fabulous pioneer of contemporary history,” and 
“much more serious than many German historians.” He 
said descriptions of Irving as a Holocaust-denier were 
“idiotic.” This caused German newspapers and Jewish 
groups to label Hochhuth an anti-Semite. In fact, the 
German publishing house Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 
cancelled publication of Hochhuth’ s autobiography over 
this matter. (Irving, by the way, pleaded guilty and 
received a three-year sentence.) 

This was not the only time Hochhuth had defended 
Irving. The playwright spoke very highly of him in his 
memoirs. When critics asked how anyone could write 
words of praise for someone like Irving, his answer was, 
“Because I am Hochhuth.” 

It is not easy to pin down where Hochhuth stands on 
anything. For many years he carried on an intensive 
correspondence with the historian Golo Mann, who had 
initially supported leftist politicians and wrote a favorable 
review of The Deputy. In later life, Mann turned 
politically conservative, and on September 22, 1978, he 
sent Hochhuth an insightful letter — in effect a farewell 
letter, the break being caused by Hochhuth’ s defense of 
his anti-Semitic researcher David Irving. Mann explained 
that he did not have a clear grasp on Hochhuth’ s politics, 
but he noted a sympathy towards communism: 

I have never eonsidered you a Communist, at least not in 
the usual meaning of the word. What I have wondered 

about for a long time is that the thrust of your dramas and 
plays has eonstantly gone in one direetion, whieh would at 

least not be unweleome to the Communists. 

Mann was perceptive. 



Rolf hochhuth’s careless handeing of the facts in his 
Soldiers show raised serious questions about the 
credibility of his first play, The Deputy. Those doubts 
further deepened in 1971, when General Karl Otto Wolff, 
chief of staff to SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and 
SS leader of German-occupied Italy, was released from 
prison and rattled the whole premise of The Deputy. In no 
way had Pius XII been “Hitler’s Pope.” In fact. Hitler had 
regarded Pius XII as one of his main enemies.^ 

As Wolff finally revealed, in the fall of 1943 the 
Fiihrer had ordered him to abduct Pius XII from the 
Vatican. Hitler blamed the pope for sabotaging his racial 

purification of Germany and for overthrowing Mussolini. 
He wanted the kidnapping carried out immediately. Wolff 
informed Hitler, however, that the order would take at 
least six weeks to carry out. Eventually, Wolff persuaded 
Hitler that there would be a huge negative response if the 
plan were implemented, and the Fiihrer dropped it.^ 

Documents later found in the Vatican’s Secret Archive 
show that Wolff also managed to tip off the Holy See 
about Hitler’s plan. Upon learning about it, Pius told his 
senior bishops that, should he be captured by the Nazis, 
his resignation would become effective immediately, 
paving the way for a successor who would continue his 
fight against the Nazis. ^ 

A few months after Wolffs revelation, KGB chairman 
Yuri Andropov conceded to the Romanian DIE: “Had we 
known then what we know today, we would never have 
gone after Pius.” By that, of course, he meant that, had the 
Soviets realized Hitler’s hatred of Pius would be so easy 
to establish, they would not have framed Pius as “Hitler’s 

How did Moscow react to Wolffs revelation? 
Essentially by ignoring it, and by stepping up its efforts to 
frame Pius XII. Books and articles inspired by The 
Deputy continued to make headlines in the West, trying to 
convince readers that Pius XII was indeed “Hitler’s 
Pope.” In fact, the slander against Pius XII continues to 
rear its ugly head. 

Today, however, a closer examination of The Deputy 
through the magnifying lens supplied by Wolffs 
revelation and by documents and firsthand testimonies 
leads to the inescapable conclusion that The Deputy was a 
product of dezinformatsiya. One such proof can be found 
in The Deputy's treatment of the Katyn forest massacre. 

In 1940 the Soviets, using German weapons and 
ammunition, executed some twenty-two thousand Polish 
military officers, policemen, intellectuals, and civilian 
prisoners of war in and around the Russian town of 
Katyn, near the city of Smolensk. The victims were then 
buried in mass graves. During the Khrushchev years, 
when Gen. Ivan Serov was the KGB chairman, the 
Kremlin’s publicly proclaimed version of this incident 
was that German soldiers had committed the murders.^ 
For a long time Germany and the Soviet Union 
blamed each other for the Katyn massacre. In March 
1946, at the Nuremberg trials, Goering’s defense tried to 
bring up Katyn, but the Soviet commission, led by that 
master of Kremlin framings, Andrey Vyshinsky, protested 
forcibly. Katyn was not discussed.^ 

Between 1939 and 1941, the brutal General Serov was 
in charge of deportations in the Soviet-controlled Baltic 
countries and Poland. He was the political police 
commissar for Ukraine, and he was in charge of the 
execution of thousands of Polish prisoners of war. At that 
time, the party boss in Ukraine was Khrushchev, who was 

responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 
Ukrainian peasants. He earned a nickname as “the 
Butcher of Ukraine.”^ 

When Khrushchev ascended to the Kremlin, he 
appointed Serov to head the KGB, and together they built 
a deception operation to divert attention away from the 
belief that the Soviets were responsible for the Katyn 
massacre. Khrushchev ordered that a large memorial be 
built in a small village named Khatyn (chosen for the 
similar spelling of its name), located near Minsk in 
Belorussia (now Belarus), in order to commemorate some 
Soviets who had allegedly been killed there by the 

Khrushchev fell from grace several years before the 
Khatyn memorial could be completed, but it did 
eventually become a pilgrimage shrine. Leonid Brezhnev 
solemnly escorted President Richard Nixon to the 
Belorussian Khatyn in 1974, but it was all in furtherance 
of another framing.^ The British Daily Telegraph (July 3, 
1974) explained in an article entitled “Khatyn — Another 

President Nixon’s visit to the memorial in the Byelorussian 
village of Khatyn has eaused a mistaken impression that 
Russia has ereeted a memorial to the vietims of the wartime 
massaere of Polish offieers in the Katyn forest. In faet, 

Khatyn and Katyn are two entirely different plaees; Khatyn, 
in whieh the ‘kh’ is pronouneed as the English ‘h’ is a 
small village some 30 miles to the north-east of Minsk, the 

capital of Byelorussia. Katyn, which is pronounced as 
written, is a town about 1 5 miles west of Smolensk, a 
provincial city in Russia proper. Khatyn is about 160 miles 
west of Katyn. . . . The Russians have tried to erase Katyn 
from maps and history books. The reference to it in the 
1953 edition of the Soviet Encyclopedia was dropped. . . . 

No visitors are allowed to the area, and no memorial has 
been erected. It was not until 1 969 that the Russians 
announced the unveiling of a “memorial complex” on the 
site of the village of Khatyn. It was one of 9,200 
Byelorussian villages destroyed by the Germans, and one 
of 136 of which all the inhabitants were killed. 

Soviet lying went on until October 13, 1990, when 
Mikhail Gorbachev officially acknowledged Soviet guilt 
for the Katyn murders.^ 

In 1963, when The Deputy was first published, the 
KGB was still struggling to persuade the rest of the world 
that the Soviets had not been involved in the Katyn 
massacre. Hochhuth himself was certainly not in a 
position to know anything about the KGB’s secret efforts 
to cover up the massacre. The KGB framing experts 
working on The Deputy would not, however, have missed 
a chance to score a point for their side in the text, and they 

In the play, a Christianized Italian Jewish family 
living within sight of the pope’s residence is packing in 
preparation for seeking asylum at a monastery. The father 
and grandfather argue about the Katyn massacre, which 

has been in the news. The older man claims: ‘T know the 
Germans better than you . . . Stalin killed them.” The son 
insists that the Germans did it, pointing out that “German 
ammunition was found in their bodies.” Just then a 
German SS officer and two Italian Fascist militiamen 
burst in and haul the family off to a labor camp.^ The 
message intended by this scene, which is entirely 
irrelevant to the play’s action, seems to be that you can 
never trust the Germans and that they caused the Katyn 
massacre. This message was surely of no particular 
interest to Hochhuth, but Moscow would indeed have 

The historical aspects of The Deputy contain further 
circumstantial evidence that the show was produced by 
dezinformatsiya experts. The “Sidelights on History” 
published with the play seem to anticipate every anti-Pius 
XII argument that would be made for the next forty years. 
That fact, as much as anything else, seems to indicate a 
collective hand in authoring it. Moreover, one item in the 
“Sidelights” clearly betrays the Soviet hand and perfectly 
illustrates how to construct effective dezinformatsiya’. 

Pius XII, a cold skeptic, also did not “believe” in history, as 
we know from a eonversation he had with Adolf von 
Harnaek. No doubt for this very reason he ealeulated in all 
sobriety that he had a good ehanee to be eanonized, 
provided he helped the proeess along. Whieh he did. Not 
only his unpopularity in the Vatiean was to blame for the 
sareasms of Roman monsignori, who went so far as to say 

that he had canonized Pius X and instituted proceedings 

toward the canonization of Pius IX in order to establish 

precedents for his own elevation. 

In the above paragraph, not only is the reader 
gratuitously informed that Pius was “a cold skeptic,” but 
we are also told that he was disliked by high-ranking 
priests at the Vatican, and that he schemed to get himself 
canonized. All of those allegations are not only 
slanderous and completely unsourced, but they are 
artfully clustered around the very respectable name of 
Adolf von Hamack, a leading Protestant German 
theologian who lived in Berlin after 1890, including from 
1925 to 1929, when Pacelli was the nuncio there. Whether 
factually verifiable or not, it is entirely plausible that the 
two religious leaders might have met at the time when 
they were both living in Berlin. Hamack thus becomes the 
“kernel of tmth” holding up the dezinformatsiya in this 
“Sidelights” paragraph. 

In that pre-Internet era, Hochhuth was unlikely to have 
had access to any private statements made by Adolf von 
Hamack, who was a member of a prominent Berlin family 
and who died before Hochhuth was born. General 
Agayants’s researchers would, however, undoubtedly 
have come across Hamack’ s name when combing KGB 
secret archives for ideas on how to smear Pacelli in 
connection with his days in Berlin. 

The one place from which the dezinformatsiya officers 

would have started their research surely would have been 
the voluminous reports from Arvid Hamack, whom the 
KGB considered to have been its most important German 
agent during World War 11. Arvid lived in Berlin and was 
Adolf von Hamack’ s nephew. Originally recmited in the 
1930s, Arvid lost touch with the Soviets during their 
purges, but he was reactivated on September 17, 1940, by 
the newly arrived deputy station chief of Soviet 
intelligence in Berlin, Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Korotkov, 
who gave him the new code name of “Korsikanets.” 

Arvid handled a loose network of some sixty agents 
providing valuable economic and political intelligence.^^ 
On September 7, 1942, Arvid was arrested by the 
Gestapo, sentenced to death and executed three months 

It is entirely unlikely that any private comments made 
by Adolf von Hamack (who died in 1930) would have 
been available to Hochhuth. There might, however, have 
been reports in KGB archives from Arvid when he was 
first recmited, naming for his Soviet handlers all his 
family members and other people he knew — the kind of 
routine information new recmits are asked to supply to 
help their handlers direct their intelligence activities. The 
Hamack family dinner table was known for its interesting 
guests and conversations, and Arvid might even have 
boasted to the Soviets that his uncle had once met the 
papal nuncio — or not; it would not have mattered for the 

purposes of dezinformatsiya. The point is that Arvid’s 
reports could very well have inspired General Agayants to 
create an “Adolf von Hamack” item for the “Sidelights.” 
Almost any kind of slander could be tossed into such an 
item, which would be read as conversational reporting 
that needed no documentary sourcing. 

In fact, the whole subject of precisely how Pius XII 
became the focus of The Deputy is still intriguingly 
nebulous. In an interview with Patricia Marx, first 
broadcast over the radio in New York in February 1964 
and then printed in Partisan Review (Spring 1964), 
Hochhuth enlarged on the genesis of his play. He started 
with a disclaimer: “It all happened a long time ago, and it 
is very hard for me to reconstruct exactly how it all 
began.” He then said that he took some notes on Kurt 
Gerstein, a Nazi officer who claimed to have tried to warn 
others about the Nazi extermination plan for the Jews. 
“My idea was to write a short story about him — quite a 
long time ago,” said the playwright. He continued: 

Later, however, in 1956, 1 met a man in Austria, who had 
helped with the gassing in Ausehwitz . . . and I read 
aeeounts whieh referred baek to this old subjeet. Then it 
first beeame elear to me what the form of the play must be. 

Also, at that time, the book The Third Reich and the 
Jews, whieh eontained the Gerstein report, was published. 

And then, in 1958, a book appeared eontaining the 
doeuments eoneerning the Vatiean’s attitude toward the 
deportation of Jews from Rome. ... I eannot say more than 

this. It is seven years ago. It all fitted itself together like a 

Hochhuth has never identified this “man in Austria,” 
who was so important in the development of the play, just 
as he never identified a chatty “bishop” at the Vatican 
who he would later claim gave him material on the pope. 
(Nor, for that matter, did he ever identify the “retired 
British Intelligence man” and/or the “Polish lady” who 
allegedly gave him information for his second play. 

Hochhuth said he suddenly realized that this material 
had the dramatic stuff of a play: “the argument of the play 
hardly had to be invented by me, but could be taken 
directly from actual events — I mean, Gerstein bursting in 
upon the Papal Nuncio, had to be the dramatic climax of a 
play.” The Marx interview continued with the following 

Miss M: In the beginning, then, the Pope wasn’t in the play 
at all? 

Mr. H: Well, there had appeared, as I said, some doeuments 
about the attitude of the Vatiean, whieh already have a 
voiee in the play. It simply developed in sueh a way that 
the most meaningful antagonist to [fietional Father] 

Rieeardo [Fontana] eould be none other than the highest 
moral authority — ^preeisely beeause he makes a demand 

whieh only the highest moral authority ean make.^^ 

“A fish starts smelling from the head” had been the 
Kremlin’s slogan during the Cold War years, and its 
propaganda machinery did everything it could to attack 
the leaders of its main enemy, the United States. Moscow 
portrayed President Harry Truman as the “butcher of 
Hiroshima,” painted President Dwight Eisenhower as a 
“shark” of the warmongering military- industrial complex, 
and described President John F. Kennedy as an arrogant 
millionaire who acted as if he owned the world. It was 
clear that “the highest moral authority,” the pope himself, 
not only had to appear on the stage; he had to be the 
play’s main protagonist. In fact, Hochhuth repeated the 
phrase “the highest moral authority” three times in his 
brief exchange with Patricia Marx, almost as if it were a 
mantra that had been hammered into his head: The play’s 
main protagonist had to be Pope Pius XII. The evidence, 
however, suggests that this decision was made not by 
Hochhuth, but by the play’s first producer, KGB influence 
agent Erwin Piscator. 

How an unknown, uneducated writer like Rolf Hochhuth 
induced a famous producer like Erwin Piscator even to 
look at his play is a question in and of itself Hochhuth 
claims to have shown his manuscript around his office. 
His boss, business manager Karl Ludwig Leonhardt, was 
impressed enough to set it in galley proofs, but he was 

also a good enough businessman to check first with his 
boss at Bertelsmann headquarters in Giitersloh. The latter 
supposedly told Leonhardt that the book was too 
provocative for them (they were very much a family- 
oriented publishing house). Leonhardt sent the galleys 
over to Rowohlt, a far-left publishing house with strong 
communist ties.^^ 

Here is where one of the legends surrounding The 
Deputy says that Piscator got his hands on Hochhuth’s 
play. According to one of Hochhuth’s biographers, in 
February 1962 “an unknown thirty-year old author called 
on Piscator to discuss a play which their common 
publisher thought might be of interest. This was Rolf 
Hochhuth and the play Der Stellvertreter or The 
Representative That would be a fairly straightforward 

Piscator, however, gives a more interesting version of 
how they first met: 

When in the spring of 1 962 I was ehosen as the artistie 
direetor of the Freie Volksbiihne in Berlin ... a telephone 
eall reaehed me from Mr. Ledig-Rowohlt: he had reeeived 
a play from his friend, Karl Ludwig Leonhardt, aeting as 
intermediary, the first work of a young German author, 
whieh was really more than “just” a play. . . . The play was 
sent to me, not in manuseript as usual, but in galley proofs, 
set not by Rowohlt publishers [the eventual German 
publisher of the play] but by a publisher who had to 
aeknowledge, after typesetting, that he laeked the eourage 

for publication.”^^ 

Piscator also said: “No one had any idea how the play 
could be staged, since it went beyond any and all 

Piscator accepted the script presented to him. First, he 
had to reduce the mammoth dimensions of Hochhuth’s 
play from eight hours to two. Piscator wrote: 

Of course, it is difficult to make a stage version of this 
“total” play, to eut a play out of the play. ... In any event, I 
have agreed with the Rowohlt publishing house that the 
book will reaeh the publie at the same time as the initial 
Berlin produetion, as neeessary underpinning and 


Note that Piscator promised that he would have the 
book ready for the public at the play’s opening, 
apparently including the “documentary supplement,” 
meaning the lengthy background material published as S 
idelights on History?^ According to a biography of 

There was an entire year between the first eontaet with the 
text, whieh Piseator reeeived in the spring of 1962, and the 
produetion. Piseator’ s eareful and hands-on staging led to 
the faet that the feared seandal — at least in Berlin — did not 
eome about. . . . The produeer of the Berlin opening had eut 
the play in half, redueed the number of aetors by half, and 
eoneentrated the dramatieally multi-faeeted work entirely 

on the attitude of Pope Pius XII toward the perseeution of 

the Jews.^^ 

As he had promised, Piscator delivered the script — 
including the Sidelights — to the Rowohlt publishing 
house in time for the book to be released together with the 
play’s opening. 

Hochhuth was “quite convinced that if Piscator had 
not staged the play at the Freie Volksbuhne, he would 
never have had any of his works performed in the German 
theatre. Hochhuth said: '‘The Deputy is politics, and 
in that play Piscator found his perfect vehicle for political 
theater, a school of drama that credits Piscator for its very 

“Thanks to this play,”’ Piscator said of The Deputy, 
“there is some point in working in the theatre. It ended 
as the kind of “epic, political, theatre such as I have been 
fighting [for] for thirty years and more.”^^ “I don’t think I 
am devaluing those authors who worked with me in the 
1920s if I say that the type of play I ideally had in mind at 
that time is only now being written. . . . 

Of course, if this were truly an artistic endeavor, and 
not a political operation, it should have bothered Piscator 
that — as Hochhuth said — The Deputy violated the tenets 
of its own theatrical genre.^^ The presentation of Pius 
focused on his personality rather than on history.^^ The 
play tried to make the case that Pius, if not necessarily 

pro-Nazi during the war, at least feared communism more 
than he feared Hitler. There was, of course, no 
documentary evidence to back up such claims.^ ^ 

Piscator’s play even introduced an allegorical figure, a 
nameless doctor (likened by some to Mengele) who 
played an important role in the dramatic action. That 
was certainly outside the bounds of documentary theater. 

In a letter Piscator wrote in August 1962, he told the 
set and lighting designer: “While the scenic elements 
must be accurate in every detail, the setting must assist me 
to go beyond documented reality.”^^ As such, Piscator 
and Hochhuth were not true to their own theatrical format. 
Instead they simply used the play to further a political 

Piscator ultimately focused the play on Khrushchev’s 
archenemy, Pius XII. He was framed as — what else? — a 
Nazi collaborator. That is how all religious servants 
disliked by the Kremlin were being framed during those 
days. The play ran in Berlin for only a couple of weeks, 
receiving mixed reviews at best,^^ and its view of Pius 
XII was denied by virtually every person who had 
firsthand knowledge of the pope’s wartime activities. But, 
as previously seen, the Soviet dezinformatsiya machinery 
further improved The Deputy, translated it into several 
languages, gave it spectacular stage productions, and 
reproduced it as a popular film, all the while ensuring 
huge publicity every step of the way. 

Once again, Piscator had triumphed, while serving 
Moscow’s purpose. 




Khrushchev’S posthumous framing of Pius XII as 
“Hitler’s Pope” grew out of a very secret Soviet 
“science,” which within the sanctum sanctorum of the 
Soviet bloc was known as political necrophagy. That 
“science,” aimed at consolidating the seat of a new 
political ruler, has become a way of life for the Kremlin. 
Of course, the political heads of other countries also try to 
blame their predecessors for anything that goes wrong, 
but in Russia the blame has a tendency to get ugly, even 

Khrushchev’s political necrophagy evolved from the 
Soviet tradition of sanctifying the “supreme” ruler. 

Although the communists publicly proclaimed the 
decisive role of “the people” in history, the Kremlin — and 
its KGB — ^believed that only the leader counted. Change 
the public image of the leader, and you change history, I 
heard over and over from Khrushchev’s lips. 

Once Khrushchev was enthroned in the Kremlin, he 
changed Stalin’s posthumous image from a Russian saint 
into a ruthless butcher. That changed Russia’s history. 
Next, he changed the posthumous image of Pope Pius 
XII, and that changed the history of the Judeo-Christian 

The “science” of political necrophagy was officially 
bom on Febmary 26, 1956, when Khmshchev exposed 
Stalin’s crimes in a four-hour “secret speech” at the 
Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist Party. ^ The 
world press was taken in by this “new honesty.” The New 
York Times veteran correspondent Harry Schwartz wrote: 
“Mr. Khmshchev opened the doors and windows of a 
petrified stmcture. He let in fresh air and fresh ideas, 
producing changes which time already has shown are 
irreversible and fundamental.”^ 

Actually, Khmshchev’ s “secret speech” was just a 
cheap show intended to distract attention away from his 
own image as a callous political killer who had approved 
the infamous carnage at Katyn (where some fourteen 
thousand Polish prisoners had been shot), and who had 
become known as “the butcher of the Ukraine” because of 

the many hundreds of thousands of people executed there 
while he was Stalin’s viceroy in Kiev. 

A few days after Khrushchev had delivered his “secret 
speech,” his new spy chief, General Aleksandr 
Sakharovsky (former chief Soviet intelligence adviser to 
Romania), slipped the text of it to my foreign intelligence 
service, the DIE. “This is the most secret document I have 
ever held in my hand,” Sakharovsky said — with a wink. 
He asked the management of the DIE to pass the “secret 
speech” to the Israeli Mossad, which had just begun 
discussing a secret barter arrangement with the DIE to 
allow Romanian Jews to emigrate to Israel in exchange 
for US dollars. The DIE obediently leaked the secret 
speech to the Mossad, which at that time was closely 
cooperating with the American CIA. 

In June 1956, Khrushchev’s “secret speech” was 
published by the New York Times, which acknowledged 
that it had gotten it from the CIA. There are many public 
versions about how that speech ended up at the Times. I 
knew Sakharovsky well, and there is no doubt in my mind 
that he had also tried other ways to see that the speech 
was published. The Mossad is famous for obfuscating its 
operations. A few months later, however, Sakharovsky 
thanked DIE management — he had certainly thanked 
others as well — for having helped him to introduce 
Khrushchev’s new “communism with a human face” to 
the world. Soon after that, Khrushchev’s “secret speech” 
was debated in all Communist Party organizations and 

media throughout the Soviet bloc. 



The framing of Pius XII was Khrushchev’s second 
political necrophagy operation. Not only did it accomplish 
its original goal, but it also helped a suddenly crippled 
Khrushchev to survive in the Kremlin — for a while. In 
1962, the West German Supreme Court publicly tried 
Bogdan Stashinsky, a KGB illegal officer, for killing two 
Russian emigres in West Germany. After being heard 
initially with skepticism, Stashinsky convinced the court 
and the German public of his sincerity and remorse. What 
had started out as Stashinsky ’s trial was soon transformed 
into one against Khrushchev, who had decorated 
Stashinsky for his work, as the world learned in great 
detail what kind of man and mentality were running the 

The sanctified ruler, whose secret speech unmasking 
Stalin’s crimes was fresh in everybody’s memory, 
appeared to the Karlsruhe courtroom and the Free World 
to be just another butcher — and a flat-out liar. It was not 
at all true that after the Twentieth Party Congress 
Khrushchev had stopped the KGB’s killings — he had 
merely turned its cutting edge abroad. It was not true that 
he wanted peaceful coexistence with the West — political 
assassination had clearly become a main tool of his 
foreign policy. It was not true that Khrushchev was 

innocent — he had ordered the killings committed by 
Stashinsky, and he had signed the decree rewarding the 
perpetrator with the highest Soviet medal. 

At the end of his seven-day trial, Stashinsky stated, “I 
wanted to give worldwide publicity to the way in which 
[Khrushchev’s] ‘peaceful coexistence’ really works in 

Stashinsky did just that. He received the relatively 
light sentence of eight years, since the West German court 
declared him only an “accomplice to murder” and 
emphasized that the guilt of those from whom he had 
received his orders was far greater. “Murder is now 
carried out on express government orders,” the judge 
explained. “Political murder has, so to speak, now 
become institutionalized. 

The flamboyant Khrushchev became a crippled ruler 
gasping for air. The first pages of most Western 
newspapers were now dedicated to his crimes and lies. A 
few months later, however. The Deputy came out. 
Suddenly, the Western media turned their attention away 
from Khrushchev’s crimes, focusing instead on Pius XII’s 

Khrushchev may have been booted out, but his 
political necrophagy survived. When Gorbachev came 
along, he accused Brezhnev of having milked the country 
for personal gain. Gorbachev even had some of his 
predecessor’s relatives arrested, in an obvious attempt to 

prove that the Soviet Union had been devastated by 
individuals, not by Marxism. For his part Yeltsin accused 
Gorbachev of “leading the country to ruin,” and Putin 
blamed Yeltsin for the “demise of the Soviet Union, the 
greatest catastrophe of the century.” 

Political necrophagy — ^blaming and condemning one’s 
predecessor in office — is a dangerous game. It hurts the 
country’s national pride, and it usually turns against its 
own user. When Khrushchev died, Brezhnev decreed that 
his predecessor had badly harmed the country’s historical 
respect for the Kremlin, and that he was not worthy of 
being buried in the Kremlin Wall next to the other former 
leaders. The Soviet government even refused to pay for 
Khrushchev’s gravestone. 

In 1972, when I visited Khrushchev’s grave in the 
Novodevichy Cemetery, there was only a small, 
insignificant marker identifying it. In 1989, when 

Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceau§escu was executed, the 

Court that sentenced him to death decided that his 
outrageous cult of personality and his political 
necrophagy had dishonored Romania’s traditional respect 
for its leaders, and that he did not even deserve a coffin 

and grave. Ceau§escu’s corpse was therefore dumped into 
a bag and tossed away at a soccer stadium. 



Stalin had long since departed from the battlefield; 
Khrushchev was hors de combat for a few years and then 
he also died. His political necrophagy disappeared into 
the fog of history, and the slanderous battle cry accusing 
Pius XII of being “Hitler’s Pope” slowly faded into the 
mists of time. The Kremlin — correctly, as it turned out — 
was consumed with worry about problems that lay closer 
to home, such as the rise of the Solidarity movement in 

On October 16, 1978, Cardinal Karol J6zef Wojtyla — 
a Pole! — ^became Pope John Paul II. Andropov, the power 
behind the Soviet throne, must have asked himself: What 
would Stalin or Khrushchev do? An operation was 
eventually mounted by Soviet military intelligence — 

defending the Soviet bloc was a military assignment — 
through its friends in Bulgaria (as was established by an 
official Italian investigation).^ 

On May 13, 1981, a young Turk named Mehmet Ali 

Agca — who proved to be a Bulgarian agent — shot and 

critically wounded the pope as he was entering St. Peter’s 
Square. The pope was struck four times and suffered 

severe blood loss. Agca was apprehended and later 
sentenced to life in prison. Later, the pope famously 
forgave Agca for the assassination attempt. Italian 

president Carlo Azeglio Ciampi later pardoned the would- 
be assassin at the pope’s request and deported him to 
Turkey, in June 2000. 

Several investigations pointed to the Soviets,^ but the 
Kremlin avoided most blame for the shooting, so they 
decided to take another run at the pope. This time they 
turned to a dezinformatsiya operation not far removed 
from the earlier effort to frame Pius XII with a phony 
history. In his book The End and the Beginning: Pope 
John Paul II — The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, 
the Legacy, author George Weigel drew on newly opened 
archives pertaining to the intelligence departments of 
communist countries and revealed a fascinating story 
about an effort to smear the new pope’s reputation.^ 

Using their counterfeiting experts, in 1983 Polish 
intelligence agents crafted a phony diary purportedly 

written by a former lover of Cardinal Wojtyla. They used 
the identity of a woman he would have known but who 
was now, of course, dead. The plan was to leave the diary 
hidden in an apartment where it would be found during a 
police raid. Western reporters would assume it was 
legitimate and report on it as such. 

As it turned out, however, the agent assigned to plant 
the fake diary got drunk and was involved in an 
automobile accident. In an effort to avoid arrest and 
detention, he explained who he was and exposed the plan. 
One can only wonder what would have happened had the 
pope’s credibility been damaged early in his pontificate 
by a disinformation scheme like this. Of course, the 
phony diary was only a variation on The Deputy and its 
“Sidelights on History” section. 

Soviet bloc intelligence agents also conducted phony 
letter-writing campaigns against the pope. These hatchet 
jobs were often complemented with threats and blackmail 
operations directed against him. Pope John Paul’s body 
and his reputation survived these attacks. The Soviet bloc 
did not survive, thanks in part to John Paul’s support for 
Solidarity. The Kremlin’s war on the Vatican again 
melted into the background. 

In 1999, the fairly dormant question of Pope Pius 
XII’s alleged support for Hitler’s persecution of the Jews 
suddenly generated renewed interest with the publication 
of John Cornwell’s book. Hitler’s Pope: The Secret 

History of Pius XII . The thesis of Cornwell’s book was 
that Eugenio Pacelli was a single-minded Vatican lawyer 
and diplomat who, from the earliest part of his career, set 
out to establish the absolute authority of Rome over 
Europe’s Catholic populations. 

There is no hard evidence that Cornwell was 
connected with the Russian intelligence services; their 
archives are still sealed — some 29 billion pages are 
hidden away in them. Nevertheless, Cornwell resorted to 
political necrophagy. He used Khrushchev-style tactics of 
framing and dezinformatsiya to distort the historical truth 
about Pius XII. The flyleaf to the cover of the American 
edition boldly declares a hard-hitting new war on the 
memory of Pius XII: 

Hitler ’s Pope is the previously untold story of the man who 
was arguably the most dangerous ehurehman in modem 
history: Eugenio Paeelli, Pius XII, Pontiff from 1939 to 
1958 and long eontroversial as the Pope who failed to 
speak out against Hitler’s Final Solution. Here is the full 
story of how Paeelli in faet prompted events in the 1920s 
and ‘30s that helped sweep the Nazis to unhindered power. 

... In 1930 he negotiated a treaty with Hitler, the Reieh 
Coneordat, whieh ensured that the Nazis would rise 
unopposed by the most powerful Catholie eommunity in 
the world — sealing, by Hitler’s own admission, the fate of 
the Jews in Europe. 

There we have it. In Cornwell’s view, Pius not only 
failed to speak up for the Jews; he was in fact responsible 

for Hitler’s rise to power and for the whole Holocaust. 

The flyleaf continues, claiming that Cornwell provides 
“striking new evidence” that Pius XII “had a personal 
antipathy toward the Jews,” and stating that Cornwell 
draws “on research from secret Vatican and Jesuit 
archives made available only to the author'' 

The Vatican has examined and refuted the outrageous 
claims Cornwell makes, as my coauthor (Rychlak) has 
scrupulously documented and discussed in his book. 
Hitler, the War, and the Pope. Thus, the reader’s attention 
in this book is called to only a few significant points. 
Those points demonstrate how Cornwell tried to revive 
the Kremlin’s war on Pius XII by using typical KGB 
disinformation means and methods. 

To support his conclusion that Pius was “Hitler’s 
Pope,” Cornwell selectively edited quotes from Western 
publications, a technique widely used by the “science” of 
disinformation. By this method, a clever writer can turn a 
quotation into the exact opposite of what was originally 
intended. To see how this works, let us take a look at a 
remarkable statement quoted in the introductory materials 
to Hitler's Pope. Cornwell offers a supposed quotation 
from Thomas Merton, a well-known contemplative monk 
whose writings have inspired many people. In Cornwell’s 
hands, the quotation reads: 

Pius XII and the Jews . . . The whole thing is too sad and 
too serious for bitterness ... a silenee whieh is deeply and 

completely in eomplieity with all the forees whieh earry out 
oppression, injustiee, aggression, exploitation, war. 

This seems to be a shocking condemnation of the pope 
from an esteemed Catholic thinker. If Merton had written 
this, it would indeed give one pause. But Cornwell 
manipulated a text by Merton to create this quotation. 

(The Sulners, who fabricated the documents used to frame 
Cardinal Mindszenty, would have been proud!) Since 
Cornwell gives no citation for this Merton quote 
(although he did give references for the other two less 
controversial quotations used on the same page), it was 
not easy to document his trick."^ 

Below is the complete statement, which was written 
by Merton in his personal journal, and which is a 
complaint that he himself hsid been ordered not to publish 
his essay on nuclear war. The “silence” about which he 
complained was the “silence” that had been imposed upon 
him. It was unrelated to Pius XII. Here is Merton’s 
complete text, with the parts extracted by Cornwell 
highlighted in italics: 

A grim insight into the stupor of the Chureh, in spite of all 
that has been attempted, all efforts to wake her up! It all 
falls into plaee. Pope Pius XII and the Jews, the Chureh in 
South Ameriea, the treatment of Negroes in the US, the 
Catholies on the Freneh right in the Algerian affair, the 
German Catholies under Hitler. All this fits into one big 
pieture and our eontemplative reeolleetion is not very 

impressive when it is seen only as another little pieee fitted 
into the puzzle. The whole thing is too sad and too serious 
for bitterness. I have the impression that my edueation is 
beginning — only just beginning and that I have a lot more 
terrible things to learn before I ean know the real meaning 
of hope. 

There is no eonsolation, only futility, in the idea that one 
is a kind of martyr for a eause. I am not a martyr for 
anything, I am afraid. I wanted to aet like a reasonable, 
eivilized, responsible Christian of my time. I am not 
allowed to do this, and I am told I have renouneed this — 
fine. In favor of what? In favor of a silence which is deeply 
and completely in complicity with all the forces that carry 
out oppression, injustice, aggression, exploitation, war. In 
other words silent eomplieity is presented as a “greater 
good” than “honest, eonseientious protest.” It is supposed 
to be part of my vowed life, it is for the “Glory of God.” 
Certainly I refuse eomplieity. My silenee itself is a protest 
and those who know me are aware of this faet. I have at 
least been able to write enough to make that elear. Also I 
eannot leave here in order to protest sinee the meaning of 

any protest depends on my staying here.^ 

Cornwell selected the phrases that are italicized above, 
and linked them with ellipses. This is more than academic 
fraud. This is disinformation at its best. 

Another KGB disinformation technique used in 
Comwell’s Hitler’s Pope is revealed by the book’s cover. 
The dust jacket of the original British edition represents a 
deliberate and nasty deception. The cover is a photograph 

showing Nuncio Pacelli leaving a reception given for 
German President Hindenburg in 1927 . The caption given 
on the inside of the dust jacket of the British edition, 
however, dates the photograph as having been taken in 
March 1929. 

This is not an honest mistake. This is intentional 
deception for a purpose. By March 1939 Hitler was 
Fiihrer, and Pacelli had been elected pope on March 2, 
1939. A naive reader who had fallen for ComwelTs 
slander could easily conclude that Pius XII rushed off to 
visit Hitler as soon as he was elected. That never 
happened — neither Pacelli nor Pius XII ever met Hitler. 

This dramatic photograph shows Nuncio Pacelli, 
dressed in formal diplomatic regalia (which could easily 
be confused with papal garments), as he exits a building. 
In front of him stands a chauffeur saluting and holding 
open the square-looking door typical of old-fashioned, 
ceremonial automobiles from the 1920s. On either side of 
the nuncio stand soldiers of the Weimar Republic. Those 
who do not recognize the differences in uniform details 
could easily confuse the Weimar soldiers with Nazi 
soldiers because of their distinctive helmets widely 
associated with Nazi-era German soldiers. 

The American edition of Hitler's Pope (and its later 
paperback version) has the correct date — 1927 — for the 
cover photograph, but the picture is cropped to eliminate 
two important points of reference: the soldier nearest the 

camera and the square door of the automobile. Both of 
those images provide clues to the true date of this photo, 
which Cornwell apparently wanted to avoid — he has 
admitted that he approved the photo. ^ In the American 
edition, the photo’s background has also been 
significantly darkened and blurred, making it unlikely for 
the observer to notice that the remaining soldier is 
wearing a Weimar uniform, not a Nazi one. The 
chauffeur, with the cropping of the car door and the 
blurring, takes on the appearance of a saluting SS officer. 
It all helped Cornwell establish his thesis. 

The Soviet political police always had a large 
component that did nothing but manipulate photographs, 
as counterfeited photos were a favorite means of framing 
people — ^both for demotion and for promotion. During 
Stalin’s reign, unwanted people were not only killed but 
also removed from photographs where their presence was 
no longer desired. In the early 1920s, the Soviet media 
abounded with pictures showing Lenin together with 
Trotsky — Lenin’s closest collaborator. After Lenin died, 
however, the image of Trotsky was replaced in all these 
pictures by that of Stalin. Nikolai Yezhov, at one time the 
chief of the Soviet political police, suffered a similar fate. 
A very popular figure during the great purge, he was often 
seen in pictures together with Stalin. After Yezhov 
disappeared from the political scene, however, the 
pictures were doctored to show Stalin without Yezhov. 

After I was granted political asylum in the United 
States, Ceau§escu sentenced me to death both by firing 
squad and in public opinion. In March and April 1978, 
during Ceau§escu’s last visits to the United States and to 
Great Britain, the Romanian media were full of pictures 
showing me together with Ceau§escu and his wife at the 

White House and at Buckingham Palace. After I defected 
a few months later, my image disappeared from the copies 
of all those pictures. An example can be seen in my book 
Red Horizons, which reproduces the same photograph as 
it was published first before and then after being 

The dezinformatsiya continues. In the preface to his 
book, Cornwell says that the idea of writing a book on 
Pius XII occurred to him “several years ago ... at a dinner 
with a group of postgraduate students,” where there was a 
discussion on how “he had not done enough to save the 
Jews from the death camps.” Claiming that his original 
intention was to portray the pope as a strong spiritual 
leader, Cornwell set off for Rome to conduct some 
background research. 

While Cornwell was granted access only to the 
Vatican’s open archives, he claimed that his book was 
based on “previously unseen material.” He also said he 
spent “months on end” in a “windowless dungeon beneath 
the Borgia Tower,” while a “silent factotum brought him 

Pacelli’s files, which had been hidden from view for 

In fact, the files were simply in an underground 
storage vault; moreover, they were not secret, and they 
covered the years 1912-1922, before Hitler was running 
Germany and while Pacelli was nuncio to the Kingdom of 
Bavaria. Vatican records show that Cornwell visited those 
archives only from May 12 to June 2, 1997, that he did 
not come every day, and that he often stayed for very 
brief periods of time. Like Hochhuth, Cornwell 
apparently needed the Vatican merely as window-dressing 
for his own story. He later admitted that he was there only 
three weeks and that the files were not secret — ^but by 
then the damage was done.^ 

In his preface, Cornwell claimed that by mid- 1997, 
“nearing the end of my research, I found myself in a state 
I can only describe as moral shock” over the evidence that 
Pacelli had an “undeniable antipathy toward the Jews” 
and that his “diplomacy in Germany in the 1930s” 
betrayed groups that “might have challenged Hitler’s 
regime and thwarted the Final Solution.” Inevitably one 
recalls Hochhuth’ s elusive bishop at the Vatican, who 
supposedly opened Hochhuth’ s eyes with gossip about 
Pius’s failings. 

Hochhuth’s criticism of Pius is chamomile tea, 
however, compared to Cornwell’s knockout slug of 
whiskey. Cornwell’s mention of the Borgia Tower is also 

a nice — and irrelevant — touch, bringing to mind all the 
evils of the Borgia popes. One is again reminded of 
Hochhuth, in this instance with his mention of the Katyn 
massacres. Such touches are typical of KGB 
dezinformatsiya operations. As for Cornwell’s research, 
his book relies mainly on secondary sources, such as 
Carlo Falconi’s The Silence of Pius XII, which was based 
on documents counterfeited by the communist 
government of Croatia. When he does use original 
documents, he misrepresents them.^ 

In his books Hitler, the War and the Pope and 
Righteous Gentiles, Rychlak shows how Cornwell cited 
“original documents” to build his credibility, even though 
they did not actually support his case. This is the same 
technique used by the KGB, and it explains why my DIE 
was asked to keep producing documents, even though 
they were not incriminating. 

In his original preface to Hitler 's Pope, Cornwell 
makes a point of saying that, as a Catholic who had 
returned to the fold after an absence of twenty years, he 
originally wanted to write the full story of Pius XII so that 
his “pontificate would be vindicated.” In the preface to 
the 2008 edition, Cornwell expands on this statement, 
saying he “embarked on this biography of Pius XII with 
an open mind, in fact with a large measure of sympathy.” 
After all his research, however, he became convinced that 
Pius XII “was not a saintly exemplar for future 


The KGB’s dezinformatsiya specialists in framing 
were experts at this old rhetorical device: If you really 
want to slander someone, just pretend you were 
completely impartial, even sympathetic, when you started 
your investigation into his character, and then proclaim 
your deep regret over being forced to admit his faults. Or 

vice versa. Almost all books on Ceau§escu published in 

the West — with money from my Romanian DIE — started 
with the author’s supposed “belief’ that he was a Soviet- 
style communist, and ended by presenting him as a 
uniquely Westernized one. Hochhuth used the same 
device in The Deputy, when he said in an interview after 
his play opened that he had originally simply intended to 
write a sympathetic story about Kurt Gerstein and his 
difficulties in getting the papal nuncio in Berlin to listen 
to his tales about the Nazi killings. It was only later that 
Hochhuth (or Piscator) introduced a coldly cynical pope 
into his play.^^ 

A good example of Cornwell’s research can be found 
in his discussion of a concordat signed by the Vatican and 
Serbia in 1914. Cornwell alleges that a power-driven 
Pacelli insisted on the concordat, despite the risk of war 
and over Vienna’s objections, and that the concordat in 
fact led to World War I. Cornwell cites leftist newspapers 
and writers as the sources for his conclusions, but in fact, 
historians agree that the concordat had no effect on the 

outbreak of war whatsoever. In discussing this concordat, 
Cornwell ominously mentions that all the various 
materials were “once in the keeping of Eugenio Pacelli.” 
There was, however, nothing sinister in that, because as a 
junior member of the Vatican team handling the 
negotiations it was Pacelli ’s job to take notes and keep the 

The most revealing insight into ComwelTs research 
methods lies in the fact that, citing a secondary source, he 
wrote that the papal nuncio in Vienna had warned Pacelli 
about the risks posed by the concordat. Remarkably, 
Cornwell made no mention of the original document from 
the Vienna nuncio, which Cornwell is shown to have 
signed out while doing research in the Vatican archives, 
and which directly contradicts the statement in his book. ^ ^ 

Eventually Cornwell qualified his criticism of Pius 
XIFs handling of the roundup of Roman Jews in October 
1943, and he also acknowledged the reality of the threat 
of an invasion of the Vatican, which he had previously 
downplayed. In 2008, however. Penguin Press released a 
new, paperback edition of Hitler 's Pope. The only 
apparent change was a new preface in which Cornwell 
tried to withdraw many of these qualifications. 

In the new edition, Cornwell still argues that Pacelli 
was “an ideal church leader” for Hitler to exploit, saying: 
“I am not inclined to alter this view despite the many 
citations of Pacelli ’s alleged deeds of mercy toward Jews 

and others, or his private criticism of Hitler, or his 
cautious, even-handed reproaches against both the Axis 
and the Allied powers. According to Cornwell, Pacelli 
was a vain, beady-eyed, overwhelmingly ambitious 
careerist who dominated Vatican policy long before he 
was elected pope. The author tries to focus on the early 
1930s, when Secretary of State Pacelli “entered into a 
series of negotiations with Hitler’s government, 
culminating in the Reich Concordat.” He also says that 
Pacelli ’s postwar claim to have “on various occasions” 
condemned the “fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the 
Hebrew people,” is “a blatant lie.”^^ 

This shifting from one argument (after it has been 
proven weak) to another, and continuing to do that 
without ever fully backing away from the original 
argument, is typical of a KGB dezinformatsiya operation. 
Promoters and supporters of The Deputy did the same. 
That does not necessarily mean Cornwell was an agent of 
the Kremlin, but it does mean that in addition to using 
their moniker for Pius XII, he employed the same 
methods that they did. 



“\Dezinformatsiya\ works like cocaine,” KGB chief 
Yuri Andropov used to preach. “If you sniff it once or 
twice, it may not change your life. If you use it every day, 
though, it will make you into an addict — a different man.” 
Turning the communist leader of Romania, Nicolae 

Ceau§escu, into the West’s most favorite tyrant was based 
on Andropov’s cocaine theory. “We should plant the 
image of the new Ceau§escu in the West like opium poppy 

seeds, one by one by one. And we should water these 
seeds day after day, until they bear fruit,” Andropov told 
me in 1972, when the KGB boss had decided to make 

Ceau§escu a box-office success in the West, in a test run 
preparatory to trying the same trick with the ruler in the 

Kremlin. (Does anyone still remember the frenzy that 
greeted Mikhail Gorbachev on his trips to the West?) 

Eventually, a “new” Ceau§escu emerged from the 

seeds planted in the West by the DIE and the KGB, just as 
a “new” Pius XII had emerged from The Deputy. Nobody 

in the West knew the real Ceau§escu, just as the West’s 

new Cold War generation was entirely unaware of Pius 
XII’s heroic struggle against the Nazis before and during 
World War 11. Moreover, most public officials in the 
West were unfamiliar with the Kremlin’s highly secret 
dezinformatsiya and framing operations. 

On Christmas Day 1989, however, Ceau§escu and his 

wife were executed for genocide. Few looked back to 
speculate about how they had been so misled. By that 
time, piles of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika: New 
Thinking for Our Country and the World, which 
apparently not many people read with care, had taken the 

place of Ceau§escu’s memoirs in the bookstore windows. 

Gorbachev’s book proposed a new utopia. The Soviet 
Union would now be a “Marxist society of free people.” 
Life would be materially rich and spiritually uplifting. 

The people would attain their “democratic rights” and be 
treated with “trust and respect,” and there would be 
“equal rights for all.” Now the new man in the Kremlin, 
“Gorby,” was touted as a nascent democrat and political 
visionary. So much for institutional memory. 

The framing of Pius XII was the framing of Ceau§escu 

and Gorbachev in reverse. Over the years, the pro-Nazi 
image of Pius XII, which had been seeded in the West by 
the Kremlin and watered by KGB agents and Western 
communists, generated a flurry of books, movies, and 
articles denigrating the heroic pontiff and helping the 
framing to succeed. 

Authors, including Garry Wills, ^ James Carroll,^ 

Susan Zuccotti,^ Michael Phayer,"^ David Kertzer,^ and 
Robert Wistrich,^ swallowed the Kremlin’s framing and 
wrote highly distorted books about Pius XII. John 
Cornwell, who published the utterly defamatory Hitler 's 
Pope, came back with a second book touching on the 
topic. ^ Robert Katz, author of two books promoting the 
Kremlin’s lies about Pius XII back in the 1960s, authored 
a new book that largely combines his earlier laments.^ 
Daniel Goldhagen combined the worst accusations made 
in all the other books and launched a broad-based attack 
on Christianity itself.^ 

Like Cornwell, many of these authors selectively 
edited real quotations in order to transform positive 
information about Pius XII into negative. Here is one 
example from Suzan Zuccotti’s book Under His Very 
Windows. Pursuant to Pope Pius XII’s request, Luigi 
Cardinal Maglione, the Vatican’s secretary of state, met to 
lodge a protest with German ambassador Weizsacker after 
the notorious October 16, 1943, roundup of Jews in 

Rome.^^ Weizsacker was known to be a friendly voice 
within the German leadership in Rome, and he was 
embarrassed about the Nazi treatment of the Jews.^^ 
Cardinal Maglione began his memo about the meeting by 

Having learned that this morning the Germans made a raid 
on the Jews, / asked the Ambassador of Germany to come 
to me and I asked him to try to intervene on behalf of these 
unfortunates. I talked to him as well as I could in the name 
of humanity, in Christian charity. The Ambassador, who 
already knew of the arrests, but doubted whether it dealt 
speeifieally with the Jews, said to me in a sineere and 
moved voiee: I am always expeeting to be asked: Why do 
you remain in your position? 

Zuccotti deleted the nonitalicized clauses above, 
thereby eliminating the cardinal’s first two express 
references to the victims being Jewish. She also omitted 
the entire concluding paragraph, which recounted 
Maglione ’s last words to Weizsacker: 

In the meantime, I repeat: Your Exeelleney has told me that 
you [Weizsaeker] will attempt to do something for the 
unfortunate Jews. I thank you for that. As for the rest, I 
leave it to your judgment. If you think it is more opportune 
not to mention our eonversation [to the German high 

eommand due to fear of retaliation], so be it.^^ 

So, even though Cardinal Maglione referred explicitly 

to “Jews” three times, Zuccotti’s readers never saw those 
references. Similarly, Zuccotti quoted a report written by 
Nuncio Valerio Valeri to Cardinal Maglione, dated 
August 7, 1942. This report related to the deportation of 
Jews from France to unknown areas, probably in Poland. 
In her quote, Zuccotti deleted the crucial first line of 
Valeri’s report, where he mentions that he had used his 
position to intervene frequently for Jews in the name of 
the pope.^^ This testimony, which would be hard to rebut, 
was simply omitted. 

Zuccotti even mischaracterized Pius XII’s first 
encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, saying that it “never 
mentioned Jews. Indeed, despite references to the unity of 
the human race, it seemed to single out Christians, or 
perhaps Catholics, for special consideration.”^^ In fact, 
Pius did expressly use the word “Jew” in the context of 
explaining that there is no room for racial distinctions in 
the Church. 

This flurry of new lies supporting the original 
framing’s lies about Pius XII has generated new 
allegations, many of which are hilariously inconsistent 
even with the earlier insinuations. Eventually, the 
argument reached beyond the pope and the Catholic 
Church, challenging the very foundation of Christianity, 
the New Testament itself Of course, as Rabbi David 
Dalin has noted, many of the critics are not honestly 
seeking the truth; they are instead distorting the truth in 

order to influence the future of the Catholic Church. 

Too many stories about Pius XII have not been 
properly traced back to the original source — just as 

nobody ever bothered to check out Ceau§escu’s sudden 

love affair with democracy. In his book Constantine 's 
Sword, for instance, excommunicated former priest James 
Carroll advanced a supposed deathbed condemnation of 
Pius XII by Pope John XXIII. This is another repeated 
lie that has become the truth. No eyewitness has ever 
come forward to support Carroll’s story. The Postulator of 
John XXIITs Cause for Canonization, Fr. Luca De Rosa, 
OFM, stated that Pope John was, in fact, “full of 
admiration and devotion” for Pius XII. Archbishop 
Loris Capovilla, formerly private secretary to Pope John, 
called the Carroll story “a lie.”^^ 

In reality, John XXIII had a photograph of Pius XII on 
his desk, with a prayer on the back asking for Pius’s 
canonization as a saint. The prayer called Pius “a fearless 
defender of the Faith, a courageous struggler for justice 
and peace ... a shining model of charity and of every 
virtue. A million of these prayer cards were put in 
circulation by John XXIITs staff, and John (who prayed 
monthly before the tomb of Pius XII)^^ said in an 
audience that surely one day Pius would be raised to the 
Catholic altars. 

John XXIII even considered taking the name “Pius 

In his first Christmas broadcast to the world after 
his election, John paid the high honor of saying that Pius 
XIFs doctrinal and pastoral teachings “assure a place in 
posterity for the name of Pius XII. Even apart from any 
official declaration, which would be premature, the triple 
title of ‘Most excellent Doctor, Light of Holy Church, 
Lover of the divine law’ evokes the sacred memory of this 
pontiff in whom our times were blessed indeed.”^^ Of 
course, only a saint can be declared a Doctor of the 
Church. Yet Constantine 's Sword is at least the third 
publication in which Carroll has advanced the fabricated 
deathbed story, and he did so twice in that book! 

The often-overlooked truth about why Carroll, 
Cornwell, and so many other post-Hochhuth liberal 
Westerners have fallen into the KGB trap and watered the 
poppy seeds of its framing of Pius XII, is that their works 
were ultimately not about Pius. They were part of a new 
offensive aimed at further dividing the Judeo-Christian 
world by discrediting the Vatican. They saw the end of 
John Paul IPs anticommunist papacy coming, and they 
tried to help elect a leftist pope, by making people believe 
that Pius XII and John Paul II had led the Church in a bad 

According to these writers, John Paul and Pius were 
overly authoritarian, and just as Pius XII’s leadership 
supposedly led to the Holocaust, John Paul’s leadership 
was supposedly heading for another catastrophe. The only 

hope was to elect a very different kind of pope. The last 
chapter of Hitler 's Pope was entitled “Pius XII 
Redivivus.” In it, Cornwell argued that John Paul II 
represented a return to a highly centralized, autocratic 
papacy, as opposed to a more diversified Church. 
Cornwell wrote that there were early signs of a titanic 
struggle between the progressives and the traditionalists, 
with the potential for a cataclysmic schism, especially in 
North America. 

Cornwell felt that John Paul II was leading the 
traditionalists as the Church moved toward this struggle, 
and he argued that “canonization of Pius XII is a key 
move in the attempts to restore a reactionary papal 
absolutism. Any doubt about ComwelTs intent was 
resolved in March 2000, when Pope John Paul II made an 
unprecedented and historic trip to the Holy Land. At that 
time, as Christians and Jews were coming closer together, 
Cornwell described the Pontiff as “aging, ailing, and 
desperately frail as he presides over a Vatican that is 
driven by cliques, engulfed in scandal, and subject to 
ideological power struggles. 

To Cornwell, the Vatican was “a nest of nepotism and 
corruption, sexual depravity, gangsterism, and even 
murder.” That is exactly how Khrushchev and 
Sakharovsky also depicted it — and the United States as 
well. Much like Hochhuth before him, Cornwell quoted 
an unidentified “Vatican insider,” who described the 

Vatican as “a place of gossipy eunuchs. . . . The whole 
place floats on a sea of bitchery.”^^ 

In his 2001 book, Breaking Faith, Cornwell made 
charges against Pope John Paul II similar to those he 
made against Pius XII in Hitler 's Pope. He argued that 
centralization of power under John Paul’s authoritarian 
rule had brought about a fundamental breakdown in 
communications between hierarchy and laity. “Bullying 
oppression,” Cornwell wrote, was driving people away 
from the Catholic Church. He blamed virtually all of the 
Church’s modem problems on “the harsh centralized mles 
of Wojtyla’s Church.” He called John Paul a “stumbling 
block” for “a vast, marginalized faithful” and said the 
pope had “encouraged an oppressive intellectual culture.” 

Most of the world credited John Paul II with being 
instmmental in bringing down communism in Eastern 
Europe, by being the spiritual inspiration behind its 
downfall and a catalyst for “a peaceful revolution” in 
Poland. Despite having no armies under his command and 
no weapons to deploy. Pope John Paul II played a pivotal 
role in one of the twentieth century’s greatest geopolitical 
dramas — the stmggle against the Soviet Union’s forceful 
dominance in Asia and Eastern Europe.^^ Cornwell, 
however, despised John Paul. He warned that if a 
conservative pope were to succeed John Paul II, the 
Church would “deteriorate” and push “greater numbers of 
Catholics toward antagonism, despair and mass 

apostasy. It is safe to say that at the time, Cornwell was 
desperately trying to prevent a Ratzinger- style papacy. 

Cornwell’s book The Pontiff in Winter was his final 
shot at Pope John Paul II. The title of the American 
version of this book is The Pontiff in Winter: Triumph and 
Conflict in the Reign of John Paul If but the British title 
is more telling about Cornwell’s intent: The Pope in 
Winter: The Dark Face of John Paul IPs Papacy. In this 
book, Cornwell argued that John Paul had “taken a bit of 
the Iron Curtain with him” to the Vatican to mold a rigid, 
authoritarian papacy. Cornwell not only blamed John Paul 
for the spread of AIDS and global terrorism (just as the 
Kremlin had blamed the United States); he also said that 
John Paul had developed a “medieval patriarchalism” 
towards women, and that his “major and abiding legacy 
... is to be seen and felt in various forms of oppression 
and exclusion.” Cornwell criticized the pope’s positions 
on the September 1 1 attacks, the clash between Islam and 
Christianity, and statements regarding Mel Gibson’s 
motion picture The Passion of the Christ. Cornwell 
charged that the Catholic teachings voiced by the pontiff 
had “alienated generations of the faithful,” and that “John 
Paul’s successor will inherit a dysfunctional Church 
fraught with problems.”^ ^ 

Cornwell’s clear intent was to prevent another 
conservative from becoming pope.^^ His continuing 
theme was that the Church needed to decentralize its 

authority. Mainly, however, he advanced the typical 
laundry list of liberal Catholic demands, including 
married clergy, women priests, a bigger role for the laity 
in running the Church, and inclusive language in the 
Mass.^^ He clearly was deeply offended by the Church’s 
teachings on sexuality. Cornwell preached that 
contraception, homosexuality, divorce, and essentially all 
extramarital sex are matters to be decided by consenting 
adults, and he would like the Church to change its 
position on these matters. Instead of offering consistent 
arguments, Cornwell reviewed opinion surveys 
suggesting that most Catholics have difficulty with 
Church teachings on contraception, abortion, divorce, and 
homosexuality. He interpreted this as resistance to papal 
authority, and the only solution that made sense to him 
was to weaken the papacy and change the Church 
teachings. That, it seems, is the real motivation behind his 
writing, not the pursuit of the truth. 

In other words, Cornwell recited the dezinformatsiya's 
laundry list of accusations against the Catholic Church, 
and used dezinformatsiya techniques to further denigrate 

Pope John Paul II, perhaps better than anyone else, 
recognized the parallels between his efforts and those of 
Pius XII. John Paul, of course, did not have a horrible 
world war to contend with, nor was he threatened with the 
possible invasion of Vatican City, but given those 

differences, the approach each leader took was similar. As 
John Paul II explained, “Anyone who does not limit 
himself to cheap polemics knows very well what Pius XII 
thought of the Nazi regime and how much he did to help 
countless people persecuted by the regime. 

No smoking gun has yet been found to prove the 
Kremlin’s hand in this new war against the Judeo- 
Christian world, because the KGB archives are still, 
unfortunately, sealed. But swaying the Vatican into 
electing anti-American popes sympathetic to the Kremlin 
and its historical anti-Semitism has long been Moscow’s 
dream. According to the New York Times: 

... the forty-nine eardinals gathered in Rome [in Oetober 

1958] to eleet Pius XII’s sueeessor were indignant over a 

Soviet attempt to influenee their ehoiee of the next Pope. 

The alleged attempt was made in a broadeast by the 

Moseow radio, entitled “Events in the Vatiean” and beamed 

to Rome in Italian?^ 

Radio Moscow charged that under Pius XII’s 
pontificate, the Vatican followed a policy of open support 
of “the most reactionary and aggressive imperialistic 
circles.” That was, of course, “Zionist America” and its 
main ally, Israel. The Moscow broadcast also charged that 
Pope Pius XII had meddled in politics and so had 

“destroyed the principle of the universality of the 
Church’s mission in the world.” Echoing criticisms of 
Pius XII leveled by the Nazis, Radio Moscow concluded: 
“The hope has been expressed that the new pope may 
interest himself more in religious problems and less in 
political problems. 

In 1939 Hitler made a similar attempt before the 
enclave of the Sacred College of Cardinals. The then- 
German ambassador to the Holy See called on Eugenio 
Pacelli, cardinal secretary of state and camerlengo, or 
chamberlain, and made known to him the wishes of the 
German Reichskanzler. But Cardinal Pacelli, the most 
strongly anti-Fascist of the cardinals, was elected pope 

The hopes of Cornwell and company were also 
thwarted in 2005, when the theologically conservative 
Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger became Pope Benedict 
XVI. Not only did he continue policies in line with his 
predecessors; he also signed the papers to permit the 
sainthood cause of Pope Pius XII to advance, and he 
oversaw the beatification of John Paul II. 

On October 9, 2008, Benedict affirmed that Pius 
“often acted in secret and in silence” to defend Jews 
during the Holocaust. Celebrating a Mass 
commemorating fifty years since Pius’s death, Benedict 
said: “In light of the concrete situations of that complex 
historical moment, he sensed that this was the only way to 

avoid the worst and save the greatest possible number of 
Jews.” Benedict said he prayed that the process of 
beatification “can proceed happily. 



OF assassins'^ 



The assassination of president john f. Kennedy fifty 
years ago, at first seen by Americans as a random act of 
violence, sent the whole country into shock. The Camelot 
fairytale of youth and beauty came to an abrupt and 
violent end, graphically compounded two days later when 
Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, 

Kennedy’s accused assassin, on live television. The 
Dallas police and FBI quickly identified Oswald as the 
lone assassin of the president, but there was little evidence 
to support that conclusion. 

There was, however, irrefutable proof that, just before 
killing President Kennedy, Oswald had traveled to 

Mexico under a false identity and there had secretly met 
with “Comrade Kostin,” aka Valery Kostikov, a 
diplomatic official assigned to the Soviet Embassy. 
Kostikov has been identified by the CIA as an officer of 
the KGB’s Thirteenth Department (assassinations 
abroad), which became known in KGB jargon as the 
Department for Wet Affairs {wet meaning bloody). There 
is also irrefutable evidence that Oswald’s Soviet wife, 
Marina, had been in touch with the Soviet Embassy in the 
United States and that she concealed evidence from US 
authorities confirming her husband’s secret trip to Mexico 
and meeting there with the KGB officer Valery Kostikov. 

Lyndon Johnson, who had just been sworn in as 
president, looked upon the assassination as a criminal 
case for the police to solve. On November 25, 1963, he 
told J. Edgar Hoover it would be enough for the Texas 
attorney general to produce a report and for the FBI to 
work with Texas authorities and put together its summary 
report. Hoover agreed.^ Johnson also pointed out to 
American journalist Joseph Alsop that the FBI thought it 
could do the “wisest, quickest and most effective” study.^ 
But then, Johnson heard that the US Senate and House 
wanted to start their own investigations due to emerging 
international aspects to the case. He became afraid that 
any official suggestion of Soviet involvement in the 
assassination could lead to a nuclear threat from Moscow. 

On November 29, Johnson was briefed by Dr. Glenn 

Seaborg, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. As 
Max Holland documented in The Kennedy Assassination 
Tapes, “With chilling precision Dr. Seaborg tells Johnson 
about the consequences of an all-out nuclear exchange 
with Moscow. The cost in American lives from a first 
strike alone is breathtaking: 39 to 40 million American 
casualties, not to mention untold dislocation and 
devastation that will take decades to overcome.”^ 

Therefore, on that same day, Johnson, who was facing 
elections in a few months, created “a very high caliber, 
top-flight, blue-ribbon group” whose purpose was not to 
investigate the assassination, but primarily to invoke the 
collective integrity of its distinguished members and to 
issue a public report that would dispel all rumors of 
“foreign complications” stemming from Oswald’s known 
connections with the Soviet intelligence and with 
communist Cuba. This group came to be called the 
Warren Commission after its chairman. Chief Justice Earl 

The Warren Commission did not actually begin its 
field investigation until March 18, 1964, after the end of 
Jack Ruby’s trial. Norman Redlich, the Warren 
Commission staff lawyer in charge of preparing the 
questioning of Oswald’s Soviet widow, Marina, wrote in 
a memorandum that she had “lied to the Secret Service, 
the FBI and this commission repeatedly on matters which 
are of vital concern to the people of this country and the 

world.” Chief Justice Warren, however, ruled out any 
attempt to test Marina’s sincerity by using a lie detector or 
cross-examination, because, as he explained to his staff, it 
would make little sense for the commission to impugn the 
credibility of its chief witness on Oswald’s character. 

On June 15, the commission announced it had 
completed its investigation. The final report was written 
by three lawyers — ^Norman Redlich, Alfred Goldberg, and 
Lee Rankin — ^who had no experience in foreign 
counterintelligence, and who worked under “constant 
pressure from the commission ‘to close doors rather than 
open them’ because of the time pressure to complete the 
report before the coming presidential election.” 

The Warren Commission report was published by the 
Government Printing Office on September 24, 1964 — six 
weeks before the elections. It consists of twenty-six 
volumes of haphazardly assembled testimonies to the 
commission and documents obtained primarily from 
federal and state authorities and from the Soviet 
government, plus one volume containing the summary 
report. The summary report is a disorganized hodgepodge 
of material assembled by various staff members, to which 
is attached an unsatisfactory index. Nevertheless, the 
twenty- six published volumes contain a wealth of factual 
but essentially raw information clearly showing the Soviet 
hand to an informed analyst with inside knowledge of 
Soviet intelligence operations and methods. 

The commission’s conclusion was that JFK was killed 
on November 22, 1963, by shots fired from the Texas 
School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that 
Oswald was killed two days later at the Dallas Police 
Department by Jack Ruby. The commission “found no 
evidence to indicate that either Lee Harvey Oswald or 
Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or 
foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy”; it further 
resolved that “there is no credible evidence that Oswald 
was an agent of the Soviet government,” and that “he did 
not receive unusually favorable treatment in entering or 
leaving the Soviet Union or in returning to the United 
States.” The commission “could not make any definitive 
determination of Oswald’s motives,” although it did 
discuss some of his asocial and anti-American character 
traits that might have contributed to his motivation. 

In the late 1970s, the House of Representatives formed 
the Select Committee on Assassinations and conducted its 
own investigations. In 1979 it published twelve volumes 
of documents and hearings and one summary volume on 
the JFK assassination (Government Printing Office, with 
the summary reissued by Bantam). The committee’s 
report does contain some important new and relevant 
factual material in the form of documents that had come 
to light after 1964 and interviews conducted by the 
committee pointing even more suggestively toward 
Moscow than the Warren Commission’s materials. Again, 
however, because it lacked inside knowledge of Soviet 

intelligence, the House committee could not properly 
evaluate what it had uncovered. 

In its final report, the committee excluded the 
possibility of a Soviet hand in the assassination by simply 

In fact the reaction of the Soviet Government as well as the 
Soviet people seemed to be one of genuine shock and 
sincere grief. The committee believed, therefore, on the 
basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet 

Government was not involved in the assassination.^ 

Such credulity showed that the House committee, like 
the Warren Commission, understood nothing about the 
degree to which the Soviet government had always relied 
on disinformation and deception, to the point of even 
falsifying the Moscow street maps and telephone books. 
Evidently no one remembered that Khrushchev had 
boldly lied to President Kennedy in denying that the 
Soviets were putting nuclear missiles on Cuba. 

During the years when I was the chief of Romania’s 
espionage station in West Germany, I became involved in 
a joint Soviet KGB-Romanian DIE operation that would, 
eventually, crack open the dark window concealing the 
supersecret web of connections between Oswald and the 
KGB. In 1958, 1 was unexpectedly called to East Berlin 

for an emergency meeting. General Nicolae Doicam, at 
that time acting chief of the DIE, and KGB Colonel 
Rudenko, the DIE’s Soviet adviser for intelligence on 
military technology, were waiting for me at our embassy. 

“We’ve gotten a brand new task for you from 
Moscow,” Rudenko explained. He did most of the talking. 
On the table before me, the KGB colonel plunked down 
the Romanian translation of an American document. It 
was a press release (dated April 30, 1956) that had been 
distributed by the US National Advisory Committee for 
Aeronautics (NACA) — the forerunner of NASA (the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration). The 
document reported that NACA had received a new type of 
airplane, the Lockheed U-2, that would make it possible 
to obtain the meteorological data needed for the jet 
transports of tomorrow, which would be flying at altitudes 
far higher than those then used by all but a few military 

“Even the American media knew it was a lie,” 
Rudenko added, handing me a newspaper clipping. It was 
an article (from the Los Angeles Times of April 14, 1957) 
concerning the same Lockheed U-2 plane that the US 
government was claiming would be used to conduct 
scientific research. According to the article, the U-2 was 
actually a spy plane, which was then flying out of Europe 
and Japan under top-secret classification. The fact that the 
U-2 planes themselves were heavily guarded day and 
night was hard proof that they were highly classified and 

were being used for extremely secret missions. 

“CIA’s latest tool,” Rudenko concluded, handing me a 
Russian document and its Romanian translation. It was a 
requirement issued by the Soviet military intelligence 
service, the GRU (Gosudarstvennoye Razvedyvatelnoye 
Upravleniye), which asked for data on the U-2 plane. 

After listing what the GRU had already learned about the 
U-2, the order asked for “everything,” including rumors 
about the flight altitude of this “black lady of espionage.” 
According to that requirement, the Soviet Defense 
Ministry knew that U-2 planes had flown over the Soviet 
Union several times, but its Air Defense Command (the 
Voyska protivovozdushnoy oborony, or V-PVO) had not 
been able to track them for certain because of their 
ultrahigh altitude. 

Acknowledging that the flight altitude of the U-2 
should be a highly classified secret known to very few 
people, the GRU indicated an indirect way to obtain this 
information, and that was by learning the maximum 
operating range of the American radar gear used to 
monitor the flights of the U-2. The GRU requirement 
indicated that most of the U-2 flights over the Soviet 
Union originated at the US Air Force bases in Wiesbaden, 
West Germany and Atsugi, Japan, both manned by the 
Marine Corps, and it asked for any kind of information on 
the radar gear existing at those airports. 

In the summer of 1959, 1 got a new directive from DIE 

headquarters. According to the requirement, it was 
believed, based on “unconfirmed” information just 
obtained by the KGB, that the U-2 spy plane could fly at 
altitudes of “about 30,000 meters” (roughly 90,000 feet). 
My station was asked to make a special effort to check 
out that information and expedite to headquarters any 
confirmation or expansion of it. 

I had already sent headquarters data obtained from the 
US base in Wies-baden, which clearly showed that the U- 
2’s flight altitude was one of the most highly classified 
American military secrets, known only to persons directly 
involved in its flights and to a few specially cleared air 
traffic controllers and radar operators at that base. Unless 
an unexpected miracle occurred, I was sure that my 
station could produce nothing more on the subject. From 
the new request, I realized that the KGB must have been 
luckier. Evidently, one of its other stations had been able 
to get its hands on a traffic controller or radar operator 
assigned to the Marine Air Force base in Wiesbaden or in 

It would not take long for me to learn that that was 
true. On June 19, 1960, Nikita Khrushchev landed in 
Bucharest as head of a large party delegation to attend the 
Third Congress of the Romanian Communist Party (at 
that time called the Workers Party), and he remained there 
for eight days. Khrushchev’s spy chief and expert on 
Romanian matters. General Sakharovsky, had come with 
him, although he was not formally included in the party 

delegation. The Congress was dedicated to Romania’s 
rapid industrialization, and as I was by then head of 
Romania’s technological espionage department, I became 
the liaison officer with General Sakharovsky. 

Khrushchev spent most of the evenings sipping vodka 
and telling stories about the downing of the first U-2 spy 
plane on May 1, 1960, and about the subsequent Paris 
summit meeting, where he had just finished “humiliating” 
Eisenhower. According to what I learned during those 
eight days when I was in Sakharovsky’ s company, the 
Soviets had been able to shoot down the U-2 only because 
the KGB had obtained reliable information on the plane’s 
flight altitude. I understood that the intelligence had been 
received somewhere toward the end of the previous year, 
but that the Soviet Air Defense Command (V-PVO) had 
for some time found no opportunity to verify it, because 
there had been no more U-2 flights until April 9, 1960. 
Observing that flight, the V-PVO became convinced that 
the KGB intelligence was accurate, and it therefore 
adjusted its radar and missiles so as to be prepared when 
the next flight came over. That happened on May 1, 1960. 

“The most valuable May Day present we’ve ever 
given the Comrade,” Sakharovsky said. He told me that 
from the moment the U-2 had entered the Soviet airspace 
until it had been shot down, he had been in constant 
contact with the V-PVO commander. Marshal Sergey 
Semyonovich Biryuzov. That evening Sakharovsky had 
dined with the Comrade, and a couple of weeks later he 

received the Order of Lenin. 

Naturally, I toasted Sakharovsky on his success. 
“Bottoms up to the serzhant, too!” I ventured. 

In those days, serzhant was the broken record being 
played by our Soviet razvedka (foreign intelligence) 
advisers, who placed a high priority on recruiting 
American servicemen. Of course the KGB wanted us to 
recruit high-ranking American officers, but in Soviet 
experience it had proved true that sergeants were much 
easier to approach and recruit. They might never be 
colonels or even captains, but some were extremely 
productive intelligence agents. That was why Sergeant 
Robert Lee Johnson, who had been stationed in West 
Germany in the 1950s, was secretly awarded the rank of 
Red Army major and received written congratulations 
from the Soviet Council of Ministers and from 
Khrushchev himself.^ (Years later, Vitaly Yurchenko, a 
high-ranking KGB officer who defected to the CIA in 
1985 — and soon redefected — reported that the KGB 
regarded the case of Chief Warrant Officer John Anthony 
Walker — another serzhant — as the greatest success in 
KGB history, “surpassing in importance even the Soviet 
theft of the Anglo-American blueprints for the first atomic 
bomb” and causing “devastating consequences for the 
United States” in the event of war. John F. Lehman, who 
was the US secretary of the Navy when Walker was 
arrested, agreed.^) 

“Well, he wasn’t even a serzhant,'' Sakharovsky said. 

As was normal, the Soviet general did not elaborate on 
the details of the operation that had ended with the 
downing of the U-2 and the capture of its pilot, Francis 
Gary Powers. A few weeks after the U-2 plane had been 
shot down, however, the DIE’s razvedka advisers added a 
new wrinkle to their constant refrain about our need to 
recruit a serzhant — now we were also told to start looking 
for a “defector.” 

At that time we were not interested in the razvedka 
advisers’ demand — what American serzhant would 
defect to Romania anyway? Soon after President Kennedy 
was shot, however, we began focusing on the advisers’ 
recommendation about a defector. To our surprise we 
learned that before defecting to Moscow Lee Harvey 
Oswald had been stationed as a radar operator at the 
supersecret Atsugi Air Base outside of Tokyo, and that 
some of the U-2 planes that flew over the Soviet Union 
took off from that Marine base. 

At about that same time, in the United States the 
writer Edward Jay Epstein was conducting his own 
investigation of the Kennedy assassination, published as 
Legend: The Secret World of Lee LLarvey Oswald 
(Reader’s Digest/McGraw-Hill, 1978). This book 
introduced new and useful material on Oswald, which 
Epstein had managed to dig up and carefully document. 
Epstein claimed to have interviewed over four hundred 

persons who had been, in one way or another, associated 
with Oswald. Among them were “about seventy Marines 
Oswald had served with in Japan and the Far East,” most 
of whom “had never been previously interviewed by the 
FBI or Warren Commission.” 

Zack Stout, one of the Marines who was stationed at 
Atsugi Air Base with Oswald, stated that Oswald had 
gotten involved with an attractive Japanese girl who 
“worked” as a hostess at the Queen Bee, one of the three 
most expensive nightclubs in Tokyo and one that catered 
to American senior officers and U-2 pilots. Stout and 
other enlisted Marines marveled that such a high-class 
hostess would go out with Oswald at all. They also 
wondered how he could afford her, since an evening with 
such a girl should have cost Oswald roughly the 
equivalent of a month’s pay.^ Such an expense was also 
totally out of character for Oswald, who had consistently 
been described as a penny pincher throughout his whole 

Who would have paid for Oswald’s girl from the 
Queen Bee? Epstein’s book is centered around suspicions 
that Oswald had ties to Soviet intelligence, and it provides 
significant information indicating that the KGB must have 
been financing and manipulating that Queen Bee hostess 
who began spending her days and nights with Oswald. 

Sometime after returning to the United States from the 
Soviet Union, Oswald would claim in a radio debate on 

the subject of Cuba that, as later reported by the 
organizer, New Orleans journalist William Stuckey, “It 
was in Japan that [Oswald] made up his mind to go to 
Russia and see for himself how a revolutionary society 
operates, a Marxist society.”^ Oswald is said to have 
confided to his new American friend George de 
Mohrenschildt that, “I met some Communists in Japan 
and they got me excited and interested, and that was one 
of my inducements in going to Soviet Russia, to see what 
goes on there. 

On October 18, 1957, Oswald learned that his unit was 
to be shipped out to the South China Sea and the 
Philippines because the civil war in Indonesia was heating 
up. According to Stout, Oswald seemed unhappy about 
having to leave Japan. According to George Wilkins, 
another Marine serving with Oswald at Atsugi, on 
October 27, just before departure, Oswald shot himself in 
the arm with a derringer pistol he had ordered, in 
violation of Army regulations, from a mail-order house in 
the United States. The wound did not appear to be serious, 
and several of the Marines believed that Oswald had 
deliberately shot himself in order to remain in Japan. He 
stayed in the hospital for almost three weeks but was 
released just in time to board the USS Terrell County with 
his unit on November 20 and head for the Philippines.^^ 
After three months at sea, Oswald and his unit 
returned to Atsugi, where he was court-martialed for 

having had an unregistered weapon, the derringer with 
which he had shot himself. He was sentenced to twenty 
days at hard labor, forfeiture of $50 in pay, and reduction 
to the rank of private (thus nullifying his having passed 
the examination for corporal). Although Oswald received 
a suspended sentence, he was put on mess duty instead of 
being returned to radar duty. Immediately he put in for a 
hardship discharge, hoping, according to the other 
Marines, to be discharged in Japan, where he had made 
friends. His request was turned down, whereupon he 
picked a fight with the sergeant who had put him on mess 
duty, and that landed Oswald in the brig for nearly a 
month. When he was finally released on August 13, 1958, 
several of the Marines found him to be a changed man: 
cold, withdrawn, and bitter. 

According to Joseph Macedo, a fellow radar operator, 
Oswald complained: “I’ve seen enough of a democratic 
society here in MACS- 1. When I get out I’m going to try 
something else.” After that Oswald seemed to associate 
less than ever with the other Marines, often disappearing 
on passes to Tokyo. 

Oswald finally left Japan on November 2, 1958, on 
board the USS Barrett. Upon arrival in San Francisco, he 
took thirty days’ leave to visit his mother and go squirrel 
hunting with his brother. Then on December 22, 1958, he 
reported for radar duty at the Marine Air Control 
Squadron No. 9 (MACS-9) at El Toro Air Base in Santa 

Ana, California. John Donovan, the officer in command 
of Oswald’s radar crew, described him as “competent, 
very competent” in any job he saw him handle. Like the 
other Marines assigned there, Oswald had a much higher 
than average IQ, but Oswald was different in that he was 
almost solely interested in international affairs, not in 
women and sports the way the others were. He liked to 
ask a passing officer about some matter of foreign affairs, 
then afterwards remark to Donovan: “If men like that are 
leading us, there is something wrong — ^when I obviously 
have more intelligence and more knowledge than that 
man.” He knew the names of many philosophers, but his 
knowledge did not go much beyond the names. He 
expressed particular interest in Hegel and the subject of 
social revolutions. When he talked with people, however, 
he did not seem to be seeking information but rather 
wanting to show how much he knew — “He had his mind 
made up and was willing to discuss that point of view 
with anyone. 

According to the Marines in his unit, the work at El 
Toro was not demanding, and Oswald spent much of his 
spare time studying Russian. He subscribed to a Russian- 
language newspaper and would answer with da and nyet 
when his fellow Marines teased him about his interest in 
the Russian language and in communism. He seemed to 
enjoy having the nickname “Oswaldovich” and being 
jokingly called a “Russian spy.” On February 25, 1959, he 

took a test in the Russian language and received an 
overall grade of “poor,” which while low did show he had 
achieved some proficiency in that difficult language. 

During the period when he was stationed at El Toro, 
the KGB operational pattern required that the 
communications plan for every important agent in the 
United States be based on impersonal means of 
transmitting their information. The KGB favored the use 
of dead drops for agents who were able to provide 
intelligence on unprocessed film. In the few cases where 
agents had large volumes of documents to turn over, such 
as agents involved in scientific and technological 
intelligence (S&T), the KGB also used lockers at train 
and bus stations. 

Nelson Delgado, Oswald’s bunkmate at El Toro, said 
that toward the end of Oswald’s tour of duty there he 
noticed a stack of “spotter” photographs showing front 
and profile views of a fighter plane among Oswald’s 
papers. Oswald stuffed the photographs into a duffel bag 
along with some other things, and Delgado agreed to 
deposit the bag in a locker at the Los Angeles bus station 
for him and bring him back the key. For this Delgado 
believed Oswald had given him two dollars. Assuming 
Delgado’s recollection is accurate, there can hardly be any 
other explanation than espionage for a duffel bag 
containing classified material to be placed in a public 

It is quite possible that Oswald included in such duffel 
bags some of the new information on the height at which 
the U-2 planes were flying in their practice runs over that 
part of Southern California. According to Francis Gary 
Powers, the U-2 pilot whom the Soviets shot down on 
May 1, 1960, at El Toro Oswald had had access “not only 
to radar and radio codes but also to the new MPS-16 
height-finding radar gear,” and the height at which the U- 
2 flew was the most highly classified secret about it.^^ 

On February 15, 1962, after having defected to the 
Soviet Union, Oswald would write his brother Robert: “I 
heard over the voice of america [sic] that they released 
Powers the U2 spy plane fellow. That’s big news where 
you are I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, bright 
american-type [sic] fellow, when I saw him in 

It would have been normal procedure for the KGB to 
take Oswald to observe the Powers trial as one of the 
rewards given him for having helped the Soviet Union to 
shoot down the U-2. Otherwise, there is little reason 
Oswald would have seen him in Moscow. 

It is significant that the pilot of the U-2 plane was not 
interrogated by Soviet military intelligence, as would 
have been normal if the downing of the plane had been 
simply the result of a military operation. Colonel Oleg 
Penkovsky, a GRU (Soviet military intelligence) officer 
who was in clandestine contact with the CIA, reported on 

April 23, 1961, that since Powers had been downed in a 
military operation, the GRU had selected him, Penkovsky, 
because he spoke good English, to talk to Powers when he 
was brought to Moscow. Penkovsky said that, however, 
KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin had interfered with 
the GRU’s plans. “Shelepin got an interpreter and picked 
Powers up.” 

Powers himself would later write that he was secretly 
interrogated at the Lubyanka, the KGB headquarters, and 
that means that it was actually the KGB, not the Red 
Army, that had played the first violin in the whole 

According to Powers, his interrogation began the same 
day he was shot down, and it was witnessed by about a 
dozen people, some in uniform but most in civilian dress 
— the latter evidently important KGB officials who had 
come to see the show. During one session, which was 
conducted by a general rather than the usual two majors, 
“a short, thin, chain-smoking man of about forty 
monitored the proceedings.” Later, Powers would learn 
that this was Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB.^^ 

A substantial part of Powers’ interrogation centered on 
the flight altitude of the U-2.^^ He was asked if he had 
ever been stationed at Atsugi, and he answered truthfully 
that he had not. His interrogators specifically asked him 
about U-2s at Atsugi, showing him articles in Japanese 
about a U-2 that had crash-landed there.^^ (The Soviets 

would not have wanted Powers to suspect they might 
have had a source at Atsugi, and newspaper articles could 
conveniently explain their interest in that base. In 
September 1959, the Japanese magazine v4/r Views had 
published a detailed account of a U-2’s emergency 
landing at a glider-club strip near Atsugi and suggested 
that the U-2s might be conducting other reconnaissance 
besides weather.^ 

Epstein’s well-documented book, which is centered 
around suspicions that Oswald had secret ties to Soviet 
intelligence, provides significant information indicating 
that Oswald had indeed been manipulated by Moscow. 
Epstein even collected sufficient data to cause him 
correctly to suspect that George de Mohrenschildt, the 
wealthy American oilman who had reportedly come from 
the old Russian nobility and who became Oswald’s “best 
friend” after Oswald returned to the United States, was in 
fact Oswald’s KGB “handler.” 

In 1977, Epstein had a meeting with de Mohernschildt 
at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. The 
meeting had been arranged by the Reader 's Digest 
magazine. Epstein and de Mohrenschildt broke for lunch 
and decided to meet again at 3 p.m. When the latter 
arrived at the Palm Beach home where he was staying, he 
found a card telling him that he had to testify under oath 
to the House Select Commission on Assassinations. De 
Mohrenschildt’ s body was found later that day. He had 

committed suicide by shooting himself in the mouth.^^ 
Unfortunately, Epstein lacked the inside background 
knowledge that would have helped him to fit his bits and 
pieces together into one whole picture, and to reach a firm 
conclusion. His very well-documented story is left 
hanging in midair. 



Today, people might remember Khrushchev as a down- 
to-earth peasant who corrected the evils of Stalin. That is 
the result of another successful disinformation campaign. 
The Khrushchev who was my supreme boss for nine years 
— during which time I was promoted up to the top of the 
Soviet bloc intelligence community — ^was brutal, brash, 
and extroverted. He tended to destroy every project he got 
his hands on, and he ended up with an even more personal 
hatred for what he called the “Western bourgeoisie” than 
Stalin had. 

Many times I heard Khrushchev say, both when he 
was sober and when he was drunk, that Stalin had made 
one inexcusable mistake — he had turned his political 
police against the Soviet Union’s own people. “Our 
enemies” were not in the Soviet Union, Khrushchev 
would explain. America’s millionaires were the ones who 
were determined to wipe communism off the face of the 
earth. They were “our deadly enemies.” They were the 
“rabid dogs” of imperialism. 

After the U-2 spy plane was shot down over Soviet 
airspace on May Day 1960, Khrushchev demanded a 
meeting of the United Nations Security Council to tell his 
side of the story. That meeting began May 23, continued 
for four days, and ended with the decision to arrange a 
four-power Paris Summit aimed at calming the waters. 

Khrushchev’s handling of the Paris summit illustrates 
his nefarious nature. According to what I learned from 
General Sakharovsky, once Khrushchev was in the plane 
flying him to Paris, he became consumed with the idea 
that Eisenhower had deliberately sent his U-2 plane over 
the Soviet Union a few days before the summit for the 
express purpose of sabotaging any resolution of the Berlin 
crisis, and Khrushchev began boiling over with a 
“vitriolic hatred” for his adversary. During that very flight 
to Paris, Khrushchev therefore decided to withdraw his — 
already accepted — invitation for Eisenhower to visit 
Moscow, unless Eisenhower declared from the summit 
meeting’s podium that he would cancel the U-2 program. 

Just as the summit meeting was about to open, 
Khrushchev additionally decided to demand an apology 
from Eisenhower. In the end, Khrushchev opened the 
four-power summit by publicly announcing that the 
Soviet Union would no longer deal with Eisenhower, and 
that there would be no more summits as long as 
Eisenhower was still president. 

At the beginning of 1962, the management of the DIE 
learned that Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as 
the Soviet leader who had exported communism and 
Soviet nuclear power to the American continent. 
According to General Sakharovsky, that was now almost 
a done deed. Khrushchev predicted that the new US 
president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, would suffer a heart 
attack when he realized Soviet nuclear rockets were only 
ninety miles away from him. 

During the critical days of the Cuban crisis, Romanian 
leader Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej happened to be visiting 
the Kremlin. On the morning of October 23, 1962, 
returning home from a state visit to Indonesia and Burma, 
Dej stopped off in Moscow for a couple of hours to 
inform Khrushchev about the results of his visits. And 
there he stayed. Just before that, Kennedy had publicly 
warned Moscow to refrain from any dangerous adventure 
in Cuba, and Khrushchev — who at critical moments 
always reached out for an audience — needed somebody 
around to whom he could vent his anger. This time that 
was Dej. 

According to Gheorghiu-Dej, the Soviet leader was 
unusually irascible, and although their meeting was held 
before noon, Khrushchev already reeked of vodka. 

Shortly after Dej entered Khrushchev’s office. Marshal 
Rodion Malinovsky, the Soviet minister of defense and an 
old friend of Dej’ s (after WWII Malinovsky had become 
the Soviet gauleiter of Romania), came in and reported 
that the American Navy had been put on alert, and that 
according to Soviet electronic monitoring the Pentagon 
was preparing a blockade of Cuba. Khrushchev flew into 
a rage, yelling, cursing and issuing an avalanche of 
contradictory orders. Without asking Dej what his 
program for the day was, Khrushchev commanded a state 
luncheon and festive evening at the opera to be held in 
Dej’s honor, ordering both events to be attended by the 
whole Presidium of the Communist Party and to be 
widely publicized by the Soviet media as a display of 
communist unity. 

The rest of that day, Khrushchev acted more 
irrationally than Gheorghiu-Dej had ever seen him before, 
his mood changing from one minute to the next. During 
the state luncheon, Khrushchev swore at Washington, 
threatened to “nuke” the White House, and cursed loudly 
every time anyone pronounced the words America or 
American. At the end of the opera performance, however, 
he went out of his way to extend personal congratulations 
to an American singer who had performed in Boris 


The next morning, Gheorghiu-Dej was having 
breakfast with Khrushchev when General Vladimir 
Yefimovich Semichastny, the new chairman of the KGB, 
presented the Soviet leader with a freshly decoded KGB 
cable from Washington stating that Kennedy had canceled 
his official visit to Brazil and ordered a naval 
“quarantine” to prevent the eighteen Soviet cargo ships 
heading toward Cuba from reaching their destination. 
According to Dej’s account, when Khrushchev finished 
reading that cable his face was purple. He looked 
inquiringly at Semichastny, and, when the terrified 
general nodded, Khrushchev “cursed like a bargeman.” 
Then he threw Semichastny’ s cable on the floor and 
ground his heel into it. “That’s how I’m going to crush 
that viper,” he cried. The “viper,” Dej explained in telling 
the story, was Kennedy. 

Goading himself on, Khrushchev grew increasingly 
hysterical, for whole minutes in a row uttering violent 
threats against the “millionaire’s whore” and his CIA 
masters. “If Kennedy had been there, the lunatic would 
have strangled him dead on the spot,” I heard Dej telling, 
when he was back in Bucharest. 

As I later learned, no sooner had Dej left Moscow than 
Khrushchev found a new victim in William Knox, the 
president of Westinghouse Electric International, who 
also happened to be visiting Moscow that same day. 

Khrushchev summoned him to the Kremlin “for three 
hours of threats, complaints, and peasant jokes.” As the 
scene was described by former US official William 

Khrushchev appeared in a state near exhaustion, but he 
warned that if a Soviet ship were sunk, Soviet submarines 
would go into aetion. Perhaps Khrushehev thought Knox 
would sound the alarm to the Ameriean Embassy, whieh in 
turn might warn Washington to veer from its perilous 


On the night of October 25, 1962, Khrushchev 
received a joint PGU/GRU report stating that the 
conventional and nuclear forces of the United States had 
been put on worldwide alert, and that “the largest invasion 
force mounted since World War 11” was massed in 
Florida. That intelligence report (Sakharovsky showed it 
to me a few years later), concluded that there were serious 
indications that an attack on Cuba could take place within 
the next two or three days. I also learned from 
Sakharovsky that early on the morning of October 28, 
1962, Khrushchev received a cable from Anatoly 
Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador in Washington, 
containing the text of a message handed to him by 
Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the president’s 
brother. The message warned that time was running out, 
and that the United States was prepared to take strong and 
overwhelming retaliatory action by the end of the week if 

Moscow did not immediately agree to withdraw its 
missiles from Cuba. 

It did not take Khrushchev long to make up his mind. 
At around midnight Moscow time, about a dozen of the 
Soviet ships turned away from the confrontation. The 
Kremlin also publicly announced that all Soviet missile 
bases in Cuba were to be dismantled and that inspections 
would be permitted. 

On the evening of that same Sunday, October 28, 

1962, 1 went to Gheorghiu-Dej’s residence in Bucharest 
to report the end of the Cuban crisis. “That’s the greatest 
defeat in Soviet peacetime history,” Dej said. That day 
also happened to be my birthday, and Dej celebrated both 
events with caviar and champagne. Although it was true 
that Kennedy had won, Dej remarked, he would not give a 
penny for his skin. “He won’t die in his bed,” Dej 
predicted. Though he took secret pleasure in 
Khrushchev’s “apocalyptical” humiliation, Dej was also 
troubled. “The lunatic could easily fly off the handle and 
start a nuclear war!” 

Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was certainly the most 
controversial Soviet to reign in the Kremlin. He 
unmasked Stalin’s crimes, but he made political 
assassination a main instrument of his own foreign policy; 
he authored a policy of peaceful coexistence with the 

West, but he pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war; 
he repaired Moscow’s relations with Yugoslavia’s Tito, 
but he destroyed the unity of the communist world. 

Even though they were political heretics, Lenin and 
Stalin genuinely strove to build a paradise for the 
workers, filling the country with gigantic industrial 
complexes, erecting huge hydroelectric power plants, and 
even changing the course of some rivers. Khrushchev, on 
the other hand, had an eminently destructive nature: he 
smashed Stalin’s statues, shattered the Soviet Union’s 
image as the workers’ paradise, and broke up the Sino- 
Soviet alliance, all without building anything new to fill 
the vacuum he had created. On September 11, 1971, 
Khrushchev died in ignominy, but not before seeing his 
memoirs published in the West giving his version of 

Everything in Khrushchev’s life deviated considerably 
from the path taken by his Soviet predecessors. Unlike 
Lenin and Stalin, who had come from the very thin layer 
of Russia’s middle class, Khrushchev belonged to the 
meanwhile heroicized proletariat, an insignificant social 
category made up of urbanized Russian peasants — the 
most backward peasantry in all of Europe. The grandchild 
of a serf and the son of an indigent miner, Khrushchev 
grew up in a deeply ignorant peasant environment and 
started his working life as an unskilled manual laborer. He 
became a member of the Communist Party in 1918, joined 
the Red Army a year later, and served as a junior political 

commissar in the campaigns against the Whites and the 
invading Polish army. Unlike Lenin, who was a lawyer, 
and Stalin, who had studied at a theological seminary, 
Khrushchev had no formal education whatsoever when he 
became a party activist. “When we saw postcards of 
ballerinas, we thought they were simply photographs of 
women wearing indecent costumes,” Khrushchev wrote 
disarmingly in his memoirs.^ 

I learned about Khrushchev’s start down the path of 
power mostly from General Sakharovsky, who became 
one of his closest collaborators. Of course, Sakharovsky 
described a good Khrushchev while he was reigning in 
the Kremlin, and a bad Khrushchev after the controversial 
Soviet leader was demoted, but I have done my best to 
corroborate or refute Sakharovsky ’s claims 

Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolay Bukharin, 
Grigory Zinovyev, Lev Kamenev, and even Iosif Stalin all 
rose to the leadership of the Soviet Union because they 
had become intellectually infatuated with Marxism and 
had dedicated their lives to it. Khrushchev climbed to the 
top because he was a bellicose bureaucrat. He started his 
rise to power in a period when Stalin was in the process of 
eliminating the Old Bolshevik intelligentsia and replacing 
it with rough, ignorant peasants or factory workers who 
pledged allegiance to him. Khrushchev fitted that mold 
perfectly and was soon absorbed by the new communist 

bureaucracy. In 1931, after being hastily indoctrinated 
during a two-year course at the Stalin Industrial Academy, 
Khrushchev was assigned as a full-time activist with the 
Moscow Regional Committee. Two years later he became 
its second secretary and was given the job of politically 
supervising the construction of the Moscow metro. Stalin 
had noticed him in 1934 during a visit to the metro 
construction site, where Khrushchev had fawned over the 
“Little Father” in the Kremlin. 

Khrushchev’s show of devotion, along with the 
brutality he was using in driving the workers building the 
metro, made such a strong impression on Stalin that he 
instantly catapulted Khrushchev to the position of first 
secretary of the Moscow party committee and made him a 
full member of the seventy-man Central Committee of the 
Communist Party. Less than a year later, Stalin made 
Khrushchev an alternate member of the ruling Politburo. 

Khrushchev matured politically in a period when 
Lenin and Stalin produced what historians now term the 
greatest peacetime mass-terror in European history, a 
period in which many millions of Soviet people lost their 
lives. That left a strong imprint on Khrushchev’s 
formation — he became impulsive, violent and brutal, and 
he ended up with a deep hatred for what he called the 
“bourgeoisie.” I was present at several meetings between 
Romanian leader Gheorghiu-Dej and Khrushchev, and 
there I repeatedly heard Khrushchev actually brag about 
his hatred: “It is in my blood — my serfs blood!” After 

hearing such outbursts, Gheorghiu-Dej, who had himself 
authorized many thousands of killings, repeatedly 
expressed uneasiness over Khrushchev’s bloodthirstiness. 

Khrushchev became a party activist in a period when 
Soviet policy was carried out through heavy-handed 
propaganda and disinformation. Hence, he matured into a 
compulsive political chatterbox who had no objective 
appreciation of facts and filled his speeches with 
distortions, deliberate omissions, and flat-out lies. 
According to Sakharovsky, many times the interpreters 
Khrushchev used while traveling abroad (all of whom 
were Sakharovsky ’s officers) had to change the sense of 
Khrushchev’s statements or to ignore some entirely, 
because they were filled with vulgarities, inexactitudes, 
deceptions, and self-contradictions. 

Khrushchev’s close association with Stalin’s killings 
made him aware of what political crime could accomplish 
and gave him a taste for the simple criminal solution. In 
1936, Stalin unleashed his Great Purge aimed at 
eliminating all competition and opposition to himself. In 
the ensuing slaughter, some 7 million people lost their 
lives, including most of the high-ranking Soviet 

Of the seven men who formed Lenin’s Politburo at the 
time of the October Revolution, Stalin alone outlived the 
purges. Among provincial party secretaries, only three 
who had zealously supported Stalin’s purges survived the 

executions. The flamboyant Khrushchev, who as party 
boss in Moscow had ardently and vociferously upheld 
Stalin’s new purges from the first day, was one of those 
three. As a supplementary reward, in 1938 Stalin 
appointed him first party secretary of Ukraine and gave 
him the task of organizing a similar purge in his new 
territory. There Khrushchev proceeded to carry out his 
master’s wishes with savagery and brutality. 

The habit of resorting to political assassinations 
remained with Khrushchev for the rest of his career. His 
addiction to political crime is well illustrated in the person 
he chose as his new chief of the secret political police. In 
1954, Khrushchev reconstituted that organization as the 
Committee of State Security (KGB) and installed at its 
helm a man who was even more bloodthirsty than Beriya 
had been. General Ivan Serov, the first chairman of the 
“new” KGB, had already become infamous for the 
brutality with which, during Stalin’s rule, he had forcibly 
deported people from the Caucasus, crushed the 
anticommunist opposition in the Baltic states, and 
murdered, in the Katyn forest, near Smolensk, an 
estimated 22,000 “bourgeois” Polish officers taken 
prisoner by the Red Army. Referring to his choice, 
Khrushchev said: “Beriya’s deputies were Kruglov and 
Serov. I hardly knew Kruglov, but I knew Serov well, and 
I trusted him. I thought, and still think, Serov is an honest 
man. If there are a few dubious things about him, as there 
are about all Chekists [i.e., members of the political 

police], then let’s just say he was a victim of Stalin’s 
general policy.”"^ 

Lenin and Stalin had called themselves 
internationalists and had indiscriminately murdered 
foreigners as well as Soviet citizens. Khrushchev’s 
peasant origins had, however, molded him into such a 
nationalistic Ukrainian that after Stalin died he gave up 
the gray tunics buttoned to the neck, which had become a 
kind of international communist uniform, and instead 
started wearing peasant-proletarian outfits he invented. 
That was approximately the period when Khrushchev 
softened the repression of Soviet citizens and moved the 
cutting edge of his violence abroad. 

When Khrushchev became the head of the Soviet 
Union, he had not yet set foot abroad, nor had he been 
given an opportunity to discuss foreign affairs with Stalin, 
for the latter had laid personal claim to that field. All 
Khrushchev knew about capitalism was therefore solely 
what he had learned from Soviet propaganda. He was 
utterly convinced that the West was the world’s deadliest 
enemy, and he truly believed that the centerpiece of 
Soviet foreign policy necessarily had to be the struggle 
against the “millionaires” and their “bourgeois” countries. 
In his memoirs, he wrote: “Right up until his death, Stalin 
used to tell us, ‘You’ll see, when I’m gone the 
imperialistic powers will wring your necks like 

Khrushchev’s total ignorance about the civilized 
world, together with his irrational hatred of the 
“bourgeoisie” and his propensity to offend people, made 
him believe that disinformation and threats were the most 
efficient and dignified way for a Soviet leader to deal with 
“bourgeois” governments. In the spring of 1956, he went 
to London together with Premier Nikolay Bulganin in 
response to an invitation from Prime Minister Anthony 
Eden. According to what I learned from Sakharovsky, 
Khrushchev’s main goal on that trip was to persuade Eden 
quietly to sell prohibited technologies and equipment to 
the Soviet Union. Khrushchev’s decision to take the 
chairman of the KGB, General Serov, along with him to 
London set off a storm in the British press, however, and 
it got the visit off to a bad start. The reason the talks 
ended badly was that Khrushchev began bragging about 
Moscow’s hydrogen bomb arsenal, after Eden had refused 
to circumvent the Western embargo on strategic goods to 
the Soviet Union. 

Toward the end of 1957, Moscow learned that the 
United States was ready to establish bases for 
intermediate-range ballistic missiles on the territory of its 
NATO partners. In an attempt to prevent that move, 
Khrushchev sent a threatening note to the head of each 
NATO country. The note to Great Britain, which was 
formally signed by Premier Bulganin but fiilly reflected 
Khrushchev’s style, stated: 

I say frankly that we find it difficult to understand what, in 
taking part in such a policy, guides the government of such 
a country as Great Britain, which is not only in an 
extremely vulnerable position by force of its geographical 
situation but which according to the admission of its 
official representatives has no effective means of defense 
against the effects of modem weapons. Nor can there, it is 

tme, be such defense.^ 

At the beginning of November 1959, following the 
nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt’s President 
Gamal Nasser, Great Britain and France sent an 
expeditionary force to capture Port Said and gain control 
of the canal. On November 4, one day after the Soviet 
invasion of Hungary, Khrushchev impertinently 
threatened the Western “aggressors.” A letter Moscow 
sent to the British government stated, for instance: 

If rocket weapons were used against Britain and France, 
you would doubtless call that a barbarous act. But how 
does this differ from the inhuman attack carried out by the 
armed forces of Britain and France against practically 
unarmed Egypt? ... We are fully resolved to use force to 

cmsh the aggressors and to restore peace in the East.^ 

Disinformation had always been a main component of 
Soviet foreign policy. That fit Khrushchev like a glove, 
although he would soon learn that deceiving the West was 
considerably more difficult that lying to his fellow 
Soviets. Khrushchev, who had spent World War II as a 

general, considered himself an expert in military 
disinformation; therefore, once in the Kremlin he made 
military disinformation a main pillar of his foreign policy. 
According to what I learned from the razvedka advisers, 
Khrushchev started by trying to persuade the West that 
the Soviet Union’s air force had acquired superiority over 
the United States. “Walnut” was the codename under 
which this KGB operation, coordinated by Khrushchev 
himself, was known in the DIE. 

Just as I was leaving for my assignment as Romania’s 
spy chief in West Germany, the DIE adviser for 
intelligence on military technology, KGB Colonel 
Rudenko, told me that in July 1955, Nikita Sergeyevich 
had organized a “spectacular” Aviation Day, on which 
wave after wave of the brand new MYa-4 strategic 
bombers had flown over Moscow. In actual fact, it had 
been the same squadron reappearing every few minutes. 
“That was all we had,” Rudenko explained. 

That endless air show had caused a shock explosion in 
the Western media, the KGB adviser claimed, which had 
immediately been followed up by an avalanche of data 
“leaked by us” showing that Moscow had outdistanced 
Washington in strategic bomber strength. “Now this just 
came in,” Rudenko said during that same discussion, 
handing me a “documentary” study. His material had 
been prepared in Moscow and contained comparisons 
between the Soviet long-range TU-20 and MYa-4 
strategic bombers and the American B-47 and B-52. The 

bottom line of the study was that the Soviet Union now 
had more and better strategic bombers that the United 
States did, and my station’s task was to leak these 
comparisons to the West German media. 

As I later learned, the United States government was 
only temporarily deceived by Khrushchev’s bomber 
disinformation. In the spring of 1957, soon after the U-2 
became operational. Director of Central Intelligence Allen 
Dulles wrote to Senator Stuart Symington: 

The estimate of Soviet heavy bomber strength as of April 1 , 
1956, whieh was given in my testimony before your 
subeommittee, was largely based on an estimated build-up 
rate whieh rested upon earlier evidenee. Subsequent to my 
testimony before your eommittee in April 1956, the 
intelligenee eommunity aequired new and better evidenee 
on Soviet heavy-bomber produetion and strength in 
operational units and we undertook a eomplete review of 
our estimates on this subjeet, [whieh] revised downwards 
the estimated total produetion on Bison (the Russian 

equivalent of the B-52).^ 

A few months after I arrived as station chief in 
Frankfurt, I was informed by DIE headquarters that the 
KGB had launched “Operation Walnut II,” aimed at 
making the West believe that the Soviet Union had also 
become the world’s largest rocket power. Once again, 
Khrushchev made the first move by telling James Reston 
of the New York Times: “Now we have all the rockets we 

need: long-range rockets, intermediate-range rockets and 
short-range rockets.”^ The disinformation departments of 
the Soviet bloc intelligence community followed step, and 
soon the West was laboring under the widespread 
impression that there was a growing missile gap in favor 
of the Soviet Union, which, in addition to a large variety 
of offensive rockets, also possessed sophisticated 
antimissile rockets able to defend its territory. Three years 
later, however, the Eisenhower administration was in 
possession of strong evidence obtained by its U-2 
reconnaissance planes that the Soviets had in fact only 
two ballistic missile bases. 

The film captured by the Soviets from the U-2 plane 
shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, showed 
that Washington had seen through Moscow’s lies, but 
Khrushchev evidently could not understand that his game 
had been compromised. New instructions from Moscow 
asked the DIE to redouble its efforts to deceive the West 
about the “missile gap,” and also to spread the rumor that 
by then Moscow possessed antimissile systems as well. It 
was only in his memoirs that Khrushchev allowed himself 
indirectly to acknowledge that his claims to Soviet rocket 
superiority had been a bald-faced lie: “I used to say 
sometimes in my speeches that we had developed an 
antimissile that could hit a fly, but of course that was just 
rhetoric to make our adversaries think twice. 

In the end, Khrushchev’s missile deception turned 

against him, just as most of his foreign policy adventures 
did. Temporarily convinced that there really was a missile 
gap in Moscow’s favor, the United States engaged in a 
massive arms buildup that soon gave it overwhelming 
rocket superiority over the Soviet Union. At the same 
time the Chinese, who took Khrushchev’s “missile 
deception” at face value, could not understand why he had 
failed to use his advantage, and they therefore branded 
him “soft” on imperialism and accused him of abandoning 
communist principles. 

The fuse was lit that would eventually set off the blast 
ousting Khrushchev from the driver’s seat. On October 
14, 1964, less than a year after Kennedy was assassinated, 
Khrushchev was accused of “harebrained schemes, hasty 
decisions, actions divorced from reality, braggadocio, and 
rule by fiat,” and he was dethroned. ^ ^ 

Many years later, Khrushchev in his grave suffered the 
ultimate indignity when his son Sergei became a citizen of 
the United States, the country his father had dedicated his 
life to destroying. In 2000, Sergei Khrushchev published a 
lengthy book in which he tried to put a human face on his 
father. I found it sincere and convincing, but it deals 
with an entirely different Khrushchev — a serene, 
peaceful, loving one. Then again, if my daughter, who is 
now also an American citizen, should someday decide to 
write a book about her father, she would not know 
anything about my real career in Romania. Even though 

she visited me at my cover office and I often took her to 
the Generals’ Club of the Securitate, she had never been 
able to get even a glimpse of my real work as Romania’s 
spy chief. That was another of those strictly enforced 
rules inherited from Moscow. 

Unfortunately, we continue to cope with the legacies 
of the Khrushchev I knew — not the one his son describes. 



On NOVEMBER 26, 1963, four days after President 
Kennedy was killed. General Sakharovsky landed 
unannounced in Bucharest, in what proved to be his first 
stop on a blitz tour of the main “sister” services. From 
him, we in the DIE learned that the KGB had already 
launched a worldwide disinformation operation aimed at 
diverting public attention away from Moscow in respect 
to the Kennedy assassination, and at framing the CIA as 
the culprit. “The Comrade” himself — Khrushchev — 
wanted to make it clear to all “our sister services” that this 
was by far our first and most important task. 

“The Comrade” was afraid, Sakharovsky told us, that 
if the American media and public opinion should start 
pointing the finger at Moscow, that could end in a nuclear 

confrontation. Time was of the essence. It was crucial, 
Sakharovsky emphasized, to spread our version about the 
assassination before Washington could spread its own, so 
that our disinformation machinery could plant the idea on 
virgin soil that the CIA was responsible for the crime. 

We in the DIE knew better than to ask Sakharovsky 
questions. But we knew. 

Blaming the CIA for the KGB’s own assassinations 
and kidnappings abroad was a disinformation tactic that 
had been introduced by Khrushchev after the Twentieth 
Congress, where he had “unmasked” Stalin’s crimes. In 
spite of the KGB’s penchant for bureaucratic paperwork, 
Khrushchev ordered that from then on, all operations 
connected with assassinations and kidnappings abroad 
must be handled on a strictly oral basis. They were never 
to be committed to paper, and they had to be kept totally 
secret from the Politburo and every other governing body. 
Only the Comrade himself could approve assassinations 
and kidnappings abroad. Regardless of any evidence that 
might be produced in foreign investigations, the KGB was 
never to acknowledge its involvement in assassinations 
and kidnappings abroad; any such evidence was to be 
dismissed out of hand as a ridiculous accusation. 

Finally, after each operation the KGB was 
surreptitiously to spread “evidence” in the West, accusing 
the CIA or other convenient “enemies” of having done the 
deed, thereby if possible killing two birds with one stone. 

We learned about Khrushchev’s new strategy soon after 
the Twentieth Congress from General Ivan Anisimovich 
Fadeyev, the new chief of the rebaptized and widely 
expanded KGB department for assassinations abroad, 
who came to Bucharest for an “exchange of information.” 

General Fadeyev was known to the DIE management 
from the years when he had headed the KGB rezidentura 
in East Berlin, which became an infamous mechanism for 
assassinating people in, and kidnapping people from. 
West Germany. He had also been instrumental in the 
brutal June 1953 suppression of anti-Soviet 
demonstrations in East Berlin, when his KGB troops 
opened live fire against the German demonstrators. That 
had been too much even for the bloodthirsty Stalin, as 
Fadeyev was recalled to Moscow. Not for Khrushchev, 

In 1957, General Fadeyev began his exchange of 
experience in Bucharest by playing Khrushchev’s broken 
record, according to which Stalin had made an 
unpardonable mistake by aiming the cutting edge of the 
state security apparatus against the Soviet Union’s own 
people. Fadeyev said that when Khrushchev delivered his 
“secret speech,” the only thing he had in mind was to 
correct that aberration. In December 1917, when Lenin 
founded the Cheka, he gave it the emblem of a shield and 
a sword to symbolize its duties: to shield and protect the 
communist revolution, and to put its enemies to the 
sword. Lenin never intended, Fadeyev said, to use “us” 

against “our own people.” Ten million Soviet citizens 
gave their lives to defend “our” political system during 
World War II — what more evidence did one need to 
prove their devotion to communism? 

Fadeyev explained that “our enemies” were not in the 
Soviet Union. America’s bourgeoisie and our own traitors 
who had defected from their motherland and were now 
attacking it from abroad were our “deadly enemies.” We 
should direct the cutting edge of our sword against them, 
and only them, to fulfill “our historic destiny” as the 
gravedigger of capitalism. That was what Nikita 
Sergeyevich had really wanted to tell us in his “secret 

In fact, Fadeyev explained, one of Khrushchev’s first 
foreign policy decisions after settling down on the 
Kremlin throne had been his 1953 order to have one such 
“deadly enemy” secretly assassinated. Fadeyev was 
referring to a KGB operation aimed at killing Georgy 
Okolovich, a Ukrainian emigre who was the leader of the 
National Labor Alliance {Natsionalnyy Trudovoy Soyuz, 
or NTS), one of the most aggressively anticommunist 
Russian emigre organizations in Western Europe. 
Although bom in the Crimea, Khmshchev had spent years 
as Stalin’s viceroy for Ukraine and considered himself a 
Ukrainian — he would soon incorporate the Crimea into 
Ukraine — and it was quite normal for him to inaugurate 
his foreign policy by planning to “neutralize” the leaders 
of the anticommunist organizations mn by Ukrainian 


The KGB execution team arrived in West Germany in 
February 1954. Unfortunately, in Fadeyev’s view, the 
team’s head, KGB officer Nikolay Khokhlov, “betrayed 
his country” by defecting to the CIA. Because troubles 
never come alone, Fadeyev added, two other officers from 
the KGB assassination unit defected at about the same 
time: Yury Rastvorov in January 1954, and Petr Deryabin 
in February 1954. 

According to Fadeyev, all those setbacks led to drastic 
changes. First of all, Khrushchev ordered the KGB to 
spread the rumor worldwide that he had dismantled the 
KGB’s assassination component. Then he baptized 
kidnappings and assassinations abroad with the 
euphemism “neutralization” operations. Finally, he 
rechristened the Ninth Department — as the assassination 
component had been called up to then — as the Thirteenth 
Department, buried its existence in even deeper secrecy, 
and put it directly under his own supervision. Having 
done all that, Khrushchev then introduced a new pattern 
for the KGB’s “neutralization” operations. 

Before Fadeyev left Bucharest, the DIE had acquired 
its own ultrasecret component for kidnappings and 
assassinations abroad. The new unit was given the name 
“Group Z,” because the letter Z was the final letter in the 
alphabet, representing the “final solution.” Only the head 
of the DIE had knowledge of its operations, but we 

understood that its structure was virtually identical to that 
of its “sister” units recently created in the East German, 
Hungarian, and Bulgarian foreign intelligence services. In 
accordance with another new KGB pattern, all four 
“sister” units had their operational components in East 
Berlin, and all were equipped by the KGB with a 
complete arsenal of supplies ranging from powerful 
soporifics to trusted agents living in the West who had 
previously been used in terrorist operations by the various 
bloc services, thus allowing for the standardization of 
operational methods. 

In fact, one of the first operations conducted under 
Khrushchev’s new rules was jointly carried out by the 
KGB, the DIE and the East German Stasi in September 
1958, when anticommunist Romanian emigre leader 
Oliviu Beldeanu was secretly kidnapped from West 
Germany. The official East German newspaper, Neues 
Deutschland, and the Romanian equivalent, Scmteia, 
placed the onus for this crime on the CIA’s shoulders by 
publishing official press communiques stating that he had 
been arrested in East Germany after having been secretly 
infiltrated there by the CIA in order to carry out sabotage 
and diversion operations. 

Now, in late November 1963, a special KGB courier 
notified the management of the DIE that within the 
Dragon Operation we should include mention of a jealous 
President Johnson as the instigator of the CIA plot, which 
he, allegedly, had personally arranged to take place in 

Texas on his home turf. By December, as part of the plot, 
the KGB added the “sharks” of the American “military- 
industrial complex,” who were allegedly furious at 
Kennedy for wanting to cut back on the American 
military presence abroad and therefore on arms spending 
(and the sharks’ profits). 

The Dragon Operation has become one of the most 
successful disinformation operations in contemporary 
history. According to JFK, a 1991 movie made by Oliver 
Stone, the assassination of President Kennedy was the 
result of a conspiracy at the US government’s highest 
level, implicating members of the military-industrial 
complex, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Mafia, 
and Lyndon Johnson. The movie was nominated for eight 
Academy Awards and it won two. According to a later 
Gallup poll, between two-thirds and three-quarters of 
Americans believed there had indeed been a CIA 
conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.^ 

For many years, a satisfactory explanation of 
Oswald’s motivation had yet to be offered, because the 
whole important dimension of Soviet foreign policy 
concerns and Soviet intelligence practice in the late 1950s 
and early 1960s had not been addressed in connection 
with Oswald by any competent authority. 

In 2007, 1 published Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey 

Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination, 
a book in which I was primarily concerned with 
documenting and explaining the events leading up to the 
assassination. I did include everything I knew about the 
subsequent disinformation campaign from the Romanian 
perspective, but I could just barely touch on what has now 
become an avalanche of insistent lies, off-the-wall 
opinions, and amateur analysis flooding through the 
public media in every country over the course of all these 
years. As that very clever master of deception Yuri 
Andropov once told me, if a good piece of disinformation 
is repeated over and over, after a while it will take on a 
life of its own and will — all by itself, — generate a horde 
of unwitting but passionate advocates. 

Let me summarize my book’s analysis of what led up 
to the assassination, presenting the Soviets with such an 
enormous headache in November 1963. The KGB 
recruited Oswald for ideological reasons when he was a 
US Marine stationed in Japan. When he insisted on 
defecting to the Soviet paradise, the KGB kept him there 
for three years and then persuaded him to return to the 
United States temporarily, in order to assassinate 
President Kennedy, who had badly humiliated Oswald’s 
idol Khrushchev before the whole world. During this 
time, Oswald was intensively indoctrinated, trained in 
agent communications and weaponry, given a Soviet wife 
who was trained to assist him, and then dispatched off to 
Texas. Once there, an American businessman, George de 

Mohrenschildt, helped Oswald settle into his new 

De Mohrenschildt has been an enigma for most 
assassination researchers and even for his friends. A good 
part of Programmed to Kill deals with de Mohrenschildt. 
Here let me just say that he was a long-time Soviet illegal 
officer whose biography had frequently changed in order 
to accommodate his Soviet intelligence tasks. De 
Mohrenschildt became an American citizen in the 1930s, 
during the Nazi era, when he was documented by 
Moscow as Baron George von Mohrenschildt, son of a 
German director of the Swedish “Nobel interests” in the 
Baku oilfields. Toward the end of World War II, when it 
became clear that the Nazis would be defeated, the 
German baron became the French George de 
Mohrenschildt, who had attended a commercial school in 
Belgium founded by Napoleon. After World War II, he 
claimed that his father had been a Russian engineer in the 
Ploiesti oilfields in Romania, captured there by the Soviet 
Army and executed. No wonder de Mohrenschildt 
committed suicide when he was summoned to testify 
under oath to the House Select Committee on 
Assassinations in 1977. 

By the time Oswald was settled in Texas, Khrushchev 
had changed his mind about killing Kennedy. In October 
1962, Khrushchev had been revealed as a political 
murderer at a spectacular public trial held by the West 
German Supreme Court. The defendant was Bogdan 

Stashinsky, an officer of the KGB’s Thirteenth 
Department, who had defected to West Germany in 1961. 
He confessed to having assassinated two leading 
Ukrainian emigres in 1957 and 1959 at Khrushchev’s 
order, for which afterward he was personally decorated by 
Khrushchev. What had started out as Stashinsky ’s trial 
soon transformed into one against Khrushchev. 

The flamboyant, impulsive, and unpredictable ruler in 
the Kremlin, whose “secret” speech unmasking Stalin’s 
crimes was still fresh in everyone’s memory, now 
appeared to be just another odious butcher — and a flat-out 
liar. It was not at all true that after the Twentieth Party 
Congress Khrushchev had stopped the KGB’s killings; he 
had merely turned the focus abroad. The West German 
Supreme Court declared Stashinsky only “an accomplice 
to murder.” 

“Murder is now carried out on express government 
orders,” the judge explained. “Political murder has, so to 
speak, now become institutionalized.”^ Any revelation of 
a Soviet hand in an assassination of the widely popular 
American president would fatal to Khrushchev. 

Oswald had arrived in the United States shortly before 
Stashinsky ’s well-publicized trial, after which the KGB 
tried to turn Oswald off. The KGB sent him many 
messages, and then he had secret meetings in Mexico City 
with “Comrade Kostin,” the KGB assassinations expert 
who had been assigned to that nearby country where 

clandestine meetings could safely be conducted. Oswald 
had unfortunately been so well indoctrinated for his 
mission that he insisted on going through with it by 
himself, convinced he knew what his idol Khrushchev 
really wanted. 

Here are a few extremely important pieces of evidence 
that were found in various places after Kennedy’s 
assassination. These points have never been seriously 
considered by US investigators, who were unfamiliar with 
the KGB modus operandi. They are, however, crucial for 
understanding Oswald, his secret connection with the 
KGB’s supersecret unit for assassinations abroad, and the 
reason he acted alone in the end. 

The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had 
no secret ties with the KGB and no connection with its 
Thirteenth Department, which was responsible for 
assassinations abroad. During the long holiday weekend 
of November 9-11, 1963, however, Oswald wrote a letter 
for the Soviet Embassy in Washington, in which he 
described the meeting he had just had with “comrade 
Kostin” in Mexico City, whom he also names elsewhere 
as Comrade Kostikov. As previously noted, the CIA 
identified “comrade Kostin,” aka “Comrade Kostikov,” as 
Valery Kostikov, an officer of the KGB’s Thirteenth 
Department for assassinations abroad, who was assigned 
under diplomatic cover at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. 

After the assassination, a handwritten draft of 

Oswald’s above-referenced letter was found among 
Oswald’s effects in the garage of Ruth Paine, an 
American at whose house Oswald had spent that 
weekend. Ruth testified under oath that Oswald rewrote 
that letter several times before typing it on her typewriter. 
It was important to him. A photocopy of the final letter 
Oswald sent to the Soviet embassy was recovered by the 
Warren Commission. Let me quote from that letter, in 
which I have also inserted Oswald’s earlier draft version 
in italics within brackets: 

This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings 
with comrade Kostin [of new events since my interviews 
with comrade Kostine] in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, 
Mexico City, Mexico. I was unable to remain in Mexico 
[crossed out in draft: because I considered useless^ 
indefinitely because of my Mexican visa restrictions which 
was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on 
requesting a new visa [applying for an extension'] unless I 
used my real name, so I returned to the United States.” 

The fact that Oswald used an operational codename 
for Kostikov indicates to me that both his meeting with 
Kostikov in Mexico City and his correspondence with the 
Soviet Embassy in Washington were conducted in a KGB 
operational context. The fact that Oswald did not use his 
real name to obtain his Mexican travel permit confirms 
this conclusion. 

Now let us juxtapose this combined letter against the 

free Mexico City guidebook Esta Semana — This Week for 
September 28 — October 4, 1963, and against a Spanish- 
English dictionary, both found among Oswald’s effects, 
but given no attention whatsoever. The guidebook has the 
Soviet embassy’s telephone number underlined in pencil, 
the names Kosten and Osvald noted in Cyrillic on the 
page listing “Diplomats in Mexico,” and checkmarks next 
to five movie theaters on the previous page.^ In the back 
of his Spanish-English dictionary, Oswald wrote: “buy 
tickets [plural] for bull fight,”^ and the Plaza Mexico 
bullring is encircled on his Mexico City map.^ Also 
marked on Oswald’s map is the Palace of Fine Arts,^ a 
favorite place for tourists to assemble on Sunday 
mornings to watch the Ballet Folkldrico. 

Contrary to what Oswald claimed, he was not 
observed at the Soviet Embassy at any time during his 
stay in Mexico City, although the CIA had surveillance 
cameras trained on the entrance to the embassy at that 
time.^ All of the above facts taken together suggest to me 
that Oswald resorted to an unscheduled or “iron 
meeting ” — zheleznaya yavka in Russian — for an urgent 
talk with Kostikov in Mexico City. The “iron meeting” 
was a standard KGB procedure for emergency situations 
— iron meaning ironclad or invariable. 

In my day, I approved quite a few “iron meetings” in 
Mexico City — a favorite place for contacting our 
important agents living in the United States — and 

Oswald’s “iron meeting” looks like a typical one. That 
means: a brief encounter at a movie house to arrange a 
meeting for the following day at the bullfights (in Mexico 
City they were held at 4:30 every Sunday afternoon); a 
brief encounter in front of the Palace of Fine Arts to pass 
Kostikov one of the bullfight tickets Oswald had bought; 
and a long meeting for discussions at the Sunday 

Of course, I cannot be sure that everything happened 
exactly that way — every case officer has his own quirks. 
But however they may have connected, it is clear that 
Kostikov and Oswald did secretly meet over that weekend 
of September 28-29, 1963. The letter to the Soviet 
embassy that Oswald worked so hard on irrefutably 
proves that. 

It seems that no one in the Warren Commission had 
ever heard about the KGB’s zheleznaya yavka, however. 
Therefore, all these strong pieces of evidence showing 
that in Mexico City, Oswald had an “iron meeting” with 
“comrade Kostin,” an identified officer of the KGB’s 
department for assassinations abroad, were lost within the 
twenty- six volumes of chaotically assembled documents 
and testimonies of the Warren Commission Report. 

We should not blame the Warren Commission for 
missing the significance of the espionage proof sitting 
right in their hands. None of its members had any 
background in counterintelligence analysis. And because I 

suppose most of this book’s readers are equally unfamiliar 
with the fine points of counterintelligence technique, let 
me put it this way: You cannot expect a plumber to 
perform heart surgery. 

The Warren Commission’s unfamiliarity with the 
KGB codes caused it to miss other pieces of conclusive 
evidence. After September 11, 2001, the FBI told 
members of the National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States that only a native Arabic 
speaker could catch the fine points of an al-Qaida 
telephone intercept, especially one containing intelligence 
double- speak and codes. I spent twenty-three years of my 
other life double- speaking in codes. Even my own 
identity was codified. In 1955, when I became a foreign 
intelligence officer, I was told that my new name would 
be Mihai Podeanu, and Podeanu I remained until 1978, 
when I broke with communism. All my subordinates — 
and the rest of the bloc foreign intelligence officers — used 
codes in their written reports, when talking with their 
sources, and even in conversations with their own 
colleagues. When I left Romania for good, my espionage 
service was the “university,” the country’s leader was the 
“architect,” Vienna was “Videle,” and so on. 

By that time, I was also managing Romania’s 
equivalent of the National Security Agency, and I became 
relatively familiar with the KGB code and cipher systems. 
In an April 10, 1963, note Oswald left for his wife, 

Marina, before he tried to kill American General Edwin 

Walker in a dry run before going on to assassinate 
President Kennedy, I found two KGB codes of that time: 
friends (code for support officer) and Red Cross (code for 
financial help). 

In this note, Oswald tells Marina what to do in case he 
is arrested. He stresses that she should contact the (Soviet) 
“embassy,” that they have “friends here,” and that the 
“Red Cross” (written in English, so that she’ll know how 
to ask for it) will help her financially. Particularly 
significant is Oswald’s instruction for her to “send the 
[Soviet] embassy the information about what happened to 
me.” At that time the code for embassy was “office,” but 
it seems that Oswald wanted to be sure Marina would 
understand that she should immediately inform the Soviet 

It is noteworthy that Marina did not mention this note 
to US authorities after Oswald’s arrest. It was found at the 
home of Ruth Paine, the American friend with whom 
Marina was staying at the time of the assassination, and it 
also got lost inside the twenty-six volumes of the Warren 
Commission Report. 

When the KGB realized that Oswald could not be 
reasoned with, they brought Fidel Castro peripherally into 
the case, asking him to get one of his agents in the United 
States to kill Oswald, if the latter could not be prevented 

from going ahead with the assassination when Kennedy 
made his scheduled visit to Dallas. 

Oswald’s killer, Jack Ruby, testified under oath to the 
Warren Commission that he had visited Cuba only once, 
as a tourist, in August 1959. Fourteen years later, 
however, the House Select Committee on Assassinations 
obtained records of the US Immigration and 
Naturalization Service “indicating that Ruby left Cuba on 
September 11, 1959, traveling to Miami, returned to Cuba 
on September 12, and traveled to New Orleans on 
September 13, 1959.” These documents were later 
supplemented by tourist cards the committee obtained 
from the Cuban government, which showed “Ruby also 
entered Cuba on August 8, 1959, left on September 11, 
reentered on September 12 and left again on September 
13, 1959.”* 

In connection with these newly discovered trips, the 
chief counsel of the House Select Committee on 
Assassinations, Robert G. Blakey, wrote: “We established 
beyond reasonable doubt that Ruby lied repeatedly and 
willfully to the FBI and the Warren Commission about 
the number of trips he made to Cuba and their duration.”^ 

In its final report, the House Select Committee 
concluded that “vacationing was probably not the purpose 
for traveling to Havana, despite Ruby’s insistence to the 
Warren Commission that his one trip to Cuba in 1959 was 
a social visit.”^^ The official US investigation of Ruby 

stopped there, however. 




Since the pubeication of Programmed to Kill, a good 
deal of unimpeachable information has become available, 
providing fascinating insights into the KGB’s 
disinformation operation aimed at framing the CIA as the 
behind-the-scenes perpetrator of President Kennedy’s 
assassination. Not only are we now better able to envision 
the KGB’s thinking and projected aims for the 
postassassination period, but many of the players have 
also been identified as KGB agents, and some of the 
techniques have been exposed as tried and true KGB 
ploys — agents and operational tricks that have turned up 
in other KGB disinformation operations, some of which 

have been discussed earlier in this book. (The Soviet 
intelligence officers whom I knew in my previous life 
generally recommended that we continue to use 
operational scenarios that had worked in the past.) 

The first piece of irrefutable evidence proving the 
KGB had launched a disinformation offensive with 
respect to the Kennedy assassination aimed at diverting 
public attention away from Moscow was released by 
Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first freely elected president. In his 
memoir, The Struggle for Russia, Yeltsin revealed a letter 
to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union dated November 23, 1963 — the day after 
Kennedy’s assassination — signed by KGB chairman 
Vladimir Semichastny, which recommended publishing, 
in a “progressive paper in one of the Western countries,” 
an article “exposing the attempt by reactionary circles in 
the USA to remove the responsibility for the murder of 
Kennedy from the real criminals, [i.e.,] the racists and 
ultra-right elements guilty of the spread and growth of 
violence and terror in the United States.” Semichastny’ s 
request was approved. Two months later, R. Palme Dutt, 
the editor of a communist-controlled British journal called 
Labour Monthly, published an article that raised the 
specter of CIA involvement without offering a scintilla of 
evidence. “[M]ost commentators,” Dutt wrote, “have 
surmised a coup of the Ultra-Right or racialists of Dallas 
. . . [that], with the manifest complicity necessary of a very 
wide range of authorities, bears all the hallmarks of a CIA 


The CIA is by far the world’s best intelligence 
organization. It decisively contributed to America’s Cold 
War victory, and it became the world’s first line of 
defense against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. By 
portraying it as a criminal organization, the KGB hoped to 
diminish its ability to recruit human assets able to see 
what satellites could not — what Soviet bloc despots were 
thinking, and what their most secret war plans were. 

Much of the reliable new information that documents 
the Kremlin’s disinformation operation blaming the CIA 
for killing Kennedy has come from defectors. In 1992, the 
British smuggled Colonel Vasili Mitrokhin, a KGB 
archivist, out of the Soviet Union, along with some 
25,000 highly classified documents he had stolen from 
KGB foreign intelligence archives over the course of 
many years. Those documents represent a minuscule part 
of the whole KGB archive. Nevertheless, the FBI 
described the Mitrokhin Archive as “the most complete 
and extensive intelligence ever received from any 
source.” In the view of the CIA, this archive is “the 
biggest counter-intelligence bonanza of the postwar 

Mitrokhin reported on the Kennedy assassination 
conspiracy stories promoted by the KGB, and his material 
identifies a number of the agents in the West who were 
engaged in promoting those conspiracy theories. Among 

the most important revelations provided by the Mitrokhin 
Archive are the highly classified KGB documents proving 
that the so-called Kennedy assassination conspiracy, 
which to this day has generated thousands of books all 
around the world, was bom in the KGB, and that some of 
it was financed by the KGB. 

Equally significant are the documents in the Mitrokhin 
Archive showing that the KGB had constmcted this 
conspiracy using some of the same paid KGB agents who 
were called upon to promote the disinformation operation 
designed to frame Pius XII as having been pro-Nazi: 

Carlo Marzani, codenamed Nord, who received a 
significant amount of money from the KGB to produce 
pro-Soviet books; 1. F. Stone, codenamed Blin (Russian 
for “pancake”), who began receiving the Kremlin’s 
money in 1944; and Victor Perlo, codenamed Raid or 
Raider, identified as a Soviet agent in the Venona 
electronic intercepts, as well as by defectors. 

That should come as no surprise. After all, both 
operations took off in 1963 {The Deputy hit the Berlin 
stage in Febmary, and Oswald shot the president in 
November), both would have been dreamt up by 
Khmshchev with the help of his spy chief. General 
Sakharovsky — the former chief Soviet intelligence 
adviser for Romania — and both would have been carried 
out by the same disinformation experts on the desk at 
KGB headquarters at that time. 

According to documents in the Mitrokhin Archive, the 
first book on the assassination published in the United 
States, Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy?, was authored by a 
former member of the German Communist Party, Joachim 
Joesten, and published in New York by KGB agent Carlo 
Aldo Marzani.^ The publisher Marzani was regularly and 
generously paid by the KGB (and by the Communist 
Party’s Central Committee) to promote books of a 
progressive nature by both American and foreign 
authors. Until the Mitrokhin Archive documents began 
appearing in 1999, it was not known that Joesten’ s 
publisher, Marzani & Munsell, received subsidies totaling 
$672,000 from the Central Committee of the Communist 
Party in the early 1960s.^ 

Shortly before publishing Joesten’ s book on Oswald, 
Marzani supported the KGB’s attack on Pius XIL As 
noted in an earlier chapter discussing Hochhuth’s The 
Deputy, when that anti-Pius XII play debuted in Berlin in 
1963, Marzani was able on short notice to republish 
Shylock: The History of a Character, an early book 
describing the mistreatment of Jews by popes, which 
helped to advertise Hochhuth’s play. 

It is noteworthy that Joesten’ s book saw the light of 
day just a couple of days before the Warren Commission 
Report was published, conforming to the KGB’s 
instructions that we in the DIE received in the Dragon 
Operation. In his book, Joesten also follows what we 

knew as Dragon Operation guidelines by describing 
Oswald as an FBI agent provocateur with a CIA 
background, who was used to shield the real assassins, an 
unnamed group of American right-wing conspirators. 

No one knows how Joesten became such an instant 
authority on the assassination. He has said that he spent 
five days in Dallas “investigating” the tragedy and that he 
then, on December 1 1, 1963, returned home to his wife. 
But she said he failed to show up for dinner that evening, 
instead leaving her a note saying he had gone to Europe. 
And gone he was for several months. Later that year, 
Joesten began publishing articles and books on the 
Kennedy assassination.^ 

As discussed earlier, when people asked Rolf 
Hochhuth where he got his outrageous stories about Pius 
XII, he would say he had spent three months in Rome 
chatting up a talkative German bishop, but that the source 
material had to remain sealed for fifty years. The public 
has not been satisfied with either five days in Dallas or 
three months in Rome. 

The first review of Joesten’ s book, which praised it to 
the skies, was signed by KGB agent Victor Perlo and was 
published on September 23, 1964, in New Times, which I 
knew was a KGB front at one time printed in Romania.^ 
In the 1930s, Perlo was the head of a group of important 
agents run by the communist underground in the United 
States. In 1944, Perlo and his group were turned over to 

the KGB predecessor organization and handled by 
Elizabeth Bentley, who defected a year later. That 
transfer, incidentally, took place at the New York 
apartment of the lawyer John Abt, a lifelong member of 
the American Communist Party, who — according to the 
Vassiliev Archive — regularly helped the party 
underground, the KGB and the GRU with funding and 
legal matters.^ After his arrest, Oswald stated he wanted 
to be represented by John Abt and tried to reach him by 
telephone, but Abt was away for the weekend.^ The 
Vassiliev Archive also documents that Perlo frequently 
wrote articles for various communist fronts, signing them 
with assorted pseudonyms. In the 1940s, he helped the 
writer I. F. Stone compile material for various exposes. 

On December 9, 1963, 1. F. Stone (KGB codename 
“Blin”) published a long article in which he tried to justify 
why America had killed its own president. He called 
Oswald and Ruby “rightist crackpots,” but put the real 
blame on the “warlike Administration” of the United 
States, that was trying to sell Europe a “nuclear 
monstrosity.”^^ Stone was another paid KGB agent who a 
few months later joined in the attack on Pius XIL As 
noted in an earlier chapter, on March 9, 1964, Stone 
signed an article in his own weekly publication that 
praised Hochhuth’s play The Deputy and attacked Pius 
XII as having been “friendly to Hitler” and to 
Mussolini. That same month. Stone’s sister, Judy Stone, 

published a friendly interview with Hochhuth in 
Ramparts^^ which, as will be seen below, would play 
significant role in promoting the KGB disinformation 
connected with the Kennedy assassination as well. 

So again we see the KGB rounding up the “usual 
suspects,” both in order to smear Pius XII as pro-Hitler 
and to blame the CIA and other American targets for the 
death of President Kennedy. 

Joachim Joesten dedicated his book Oswald: Assassin 
or Fall Guy? to Mark Lane, an American leftist who in 
1966 produced the bestseller Rush to Judgment, alleging 
Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing American 
group. Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive show that the 
KGB indirectly sent Mark Lane money ($2,000), and that 
KGB operative, Genrikh Borovik, was in regular contact 
with him. Another KGB defector. Colonel Oleg 
Gordlevsky (former KGB station chief in London), has 
identified Borovik as the brother-in-law of Col. General 
Vladimir Kryuchkov, who in 1974 became head of KGB 
foreign intelligence, in 1988 chairman of the KGB, and in 
August 1991 led the anti-glasnost coup in Moscow. 

The year 1967 saw the publication of two more books 
attributed to Joesten: The Case Against Lyndon Johnson 
in the Assassination of President Kennedy and Oswald: 
The Truth. Both books insinuated that President Johnson 
and his CIA had killed Kennedy. They were soon 
followed by Mark Lane’s A Citizen 's Dissent (1968). 

According to assassination researcher Vincent Bugliosi, 
Mark Lane has been “by far the most persistent and 
audible single voice” in making Americans believe that 
reactionary elements in the United States killed 
Kennedy. Lane has also intensively traveled abroad to 
preach that America is an “FBI police state” that killed its 
own president. 

Mark Lane helped New Orleans District Attorney Jim 
Garrison arrest a local man (Clay Shaw), whom Garrison 
accused of conspiring with elements of US intelligence to 
murder Kennedy in order to stop the latter’s efforts to end 
the Cold War. Garrison’s book, On the Trail of the 
Assassin, inspired Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, which, as I 
mentioned prior, claims the assassination of President 
Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy at the highest 
level of the US government. 

Thus, the Kennedy assassination conspiracy was born, 
and it has never stopped. All kinds of people with any sort 
of remotely related background expertise joined the party, 
each viewing events from his own narrow perspective. 
Some witnesses to the JFK assassination have claimed to 
have heard more shots and seen more assassins and 
observed different wounds than those described in the 
Warren Commission Report, even though the latter’s 
forensic conclusions have repeatedly been declared 
accurate by responsible analysts. For example, a ballistics 
expert supplied the information that led to Bonar 

Menninger’s Mortal Error: The Shot that Killed JFK (St. 
Martin’s, 1992), which concludes that a Secret Service 
agent probably killed JFK by accident. Gaeton Fonzi’s 
The Last Investigation (Thunder’s Mouth, 1993) was 
written by a journalist who had worked with the House 
committee and claimed to have personal knowledge of a 
CIA/Oswald link through investigations he conducted in 
places like Miami. Computer expert David S. Lifton 
wrote Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the 
Assassination of John F. Kennedy (Macmillan, 1980), in 
which, on the basis of his own examination of 
photographs, concludes that JFK’s wounds had been 
altered before he was buried, although no purpose for 
such an alteration is offered. Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw 
also wrote a book questioning the wounds: JFK: 
Conspiracy of Silence (Signet, 1992). 

All such books divert the public’s attention away from 
the real case. Unfortunately, serious publishing houses 
continue to accept books of this kind, which are based on 
nothing more than each author’s viewing some aspect of 
the story through his own narrowly focused lens and then 
letting his imagination run wild. 

Another extremely significant new piece of information 
provided by the Mitrokhin Archive revolves around a 
short, handwritten and apparently naive note that starts. 

“Dear Mr. Hunt,” in which “Lee Harvey Oswald” politely 
asks for “information concerning my position . . . before 
any steps are taken by me or anyone else.” In 1975, 
photocopies of this document were mailed in the United 
States to three of the most active conspiracy advocates, 
along with a note alleging that the head of the FBI had the 

According to Mitrokhin, the note had been fabricated 
by the KGB using words and expressions taken from 
actual letters handwritten by Oswald during his stay in the 
Soviet Union, and had been twice authenticated by the 
KGB’s Technical Operations Directorate. (Remember that 
the KGB insisted on using photocopies of forgeries, as 
that made them more difficult to detect.) The KGB 
intended the “Dear Mr. Hunt” note to be an allusion to 
Texas oil tycoon H. L. Hunt, who was part of its original 
plan to implicate wealthy Texans in the assassination. In 
1977, the note was published in a small Texas newspaper. 
(The owner of the newspaper was the late Penn Jones, Jr., 
a “mysterious-deaths” conspiracy advocate, who self- 
published several books on the Kennedy assassination and 
was supported by the leftist Ramparts magazine. As 
discussed earlier. Ramparts actively attacked Pius XII and 
was instrumental in seeing Hochhuth’s anti-Pius XII play 
The Deputy produced in New York. Ramparts also 
published numerous articles on the Kennedy 
assassination, often implicating US government officials.) 
The “Dear Mr. Hunt” note was then picked up by the New 

York Times, which claimed it had been authenticated by 
three handwriting experts and by Oswald’s widow. 

The KGB forgery had been “validated.” 

In connection with the above “Dear Mr. Hunt” 
forgery, it is instructive to recall the forgeries created by 
the Hungarian communists in an effort to compromise 
Cardinal Mindszenty (discussed earlier). In 1949, right in 
the middle of his trial, the handwriting experts Lazio and 
Hanna Sulner, who had fabricated documents used against 
Mindszenty, escaped to Vienna. Once safely in the West, 
they explained how they had copied words and phrases 
from some of the manuscripts stolen from Mindszenty’ s 
office, and then had strung them together to create perfect 
forgeries, such as his alleged confession. Hanna said her 
father had invented a machine that could produce 
foolproof copies of handwriting and that Lazio had 
become very proficient at using it. She added that the 
Hungarian security police officers had been very 
interested in the machine, eventually confiscating it so 
that they themselves could make their own (rather sloppy) 
forgeries. (Here, I again recall how mystified I was when 
the KGB kept asking me to have my agents search the 
Vatican archives for more and more innocuous documents 
written by Pope Pius XII. Now we know why.) 

In April 1977, the KGB informed the Communist 
Party’s Central Committee that it was orchestrating 
additional “active measures” to expose the supposed role 

of the “American special services” in the Kennedy 
assassination. By 1980, E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA 
officer who had been caught up in the Watergate scandal, 
was publicly complaining that people were accusing him 
of having had some role in the Kennedy assassination.^^ 

Several authors have recently published meticulous books 
on the Venona intercepts. Although the decryption of 
Soviet intelligence broadcasts from the period 1940 to 
1948, known as the Venona material, does not directly 
apply to our knowledge of the disinformation operation 
that took place in the post-Kennedy assassination period, 
it does provide documentary background information on 
some of the KGB agents involved. I. F. Stone is one of 

Another source of KGB foreign intelligence 
documents is known as the Vassiliev Archive. In the 
1990s, the Kremlin authorities briefly allowed some of 
the KGB’s foreign intelligence archives, covering the 
1930s and 1940s, to be made available to former KGB 
officer Alexander Vassiliev, so that he could make notes 
on the documents for a projected joint Russian/ American 
publication in the West. In the end, this window of 
opportunity was shut down before anything was 
published, but Vassiliev and his notebooks made it out to 
London in 1996. In 2009, the so-called Vassiliev Archive 

was published without Russian censorship and augmented 
by more complete Venona decryptions and other material 
made possible with the help of Vassiliev’s notes. This 
archive provides new information on some of the Soviet 
intelligence agents used in connection with the Kennedy 
assassination and other disinformation operations. 

One other book provides some surprisingly significant 
new information from the Cuban perspective. Entitled 
Castro ’s Spies and published in 2012, it is authored by 
Brian Lateh, a writer and former CIA officer, who has 
collected factual information from defectors and overt 
sources. His most important source is Florentino 
Aspihaga, a radio intercept officer with Cuban 
intelligence who defected in Vienna in 1987. Lateh 
interviewed him in 2007, and describes him as the most 
valuable defector ever to come from Cuba. 

In October 1963, having just finished his training as a 
communications technician, the sixteen-year-old 
Aspihaga was assigned to sit alone in a commo hut on the 
shore near Havana and monitor CIA transmissions from 
Virginia, Miami, and offshore ships, looking for spies. 
Only once in the dozen years he held that job did his 
routine vary, and that was on November 22, 1963. At 
about 9:00 or 9:30 that morning, he got a coded radio 
message telling him to call his headquarters, which he did 
from another hut with a secure telephone. He was ordered 
to stop ah CIA tracking for that day and instead to listen 
for communications from Texas, and to report anything of 

importance back to headquarters. 

About three or four hours later, Aspillaga began 
picking up messages on amateur radio bands about the 
shooting of President Kennedy in Dallas, which he 
reported to his headquarters on the secure telephone. 
(Kennedy was shot at about 12:30 p.m. Dallas time, 
which would have been 1 :30 p.m. Havana time.) 

Aspillaga told Latell: “Castro knew. They knew 
Kennedy would be killed.” Aspillaga did not try to 
embroider this story or to accuse Fidel of the killing, and 
his story remained the same even after going over it again 
and again. He said that, fearing for his life, he never told 
this story to anyone until after his defection in 1987. 

Latell checked and found he had included this information 
in the Spanish-language memoirs he wrote for his original 
debriefers in 1990. It did not become publicly available 
until the appearance of Latell’ s book in 2012.^^ 

The significance of this small item lies in the fact that 
it supports the Programmed to Kill analysis of Fidel 
Castro’s peripheral role in the KGB’s damage-control 
measures and disinformation operation orchestrated in 
connection with Oswald and his assassination of the 
president. After Oswald’s secret meeting with “comrade 
Kostin” in Mexico City, the Kremlin evidently informed 
Castro about Oswald’s intention to assassinate President 
Kennedy during his visit to Dallas, and asked for Cuba’s 
help. Castro’s DGI provided its agent. Jack Ruby, who 

was given a cover story about why he might have to kill 
Oswald, and the KGB briefed Castro on the role he 
should play in the ensuing disinformation operation 
should it all become necessary. 

As soon as news of the assassination hit the airwaves, 
the Kremlin and its friends rushed to disseminate their 
version of who was responsible before anyone else dared 
to do so. Fidel Castro was among the first to react. 

Because of Oswald’s public support for Cuba and visit 
to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Castro knew he 
had to act quickly to deflect any suspicion that he was 
responsible for Kennedy’s death. As was his wont, he 
made many long speeches in Cuba and over Radio 
Havana, beginning on November 23. In all his speeches, 
he consistently said only nice things about Kennedy, 
whose death Castro said could only benefit “ultra-rightist 
and ultra-reactionary sectors” in the United States. At first 
he even denied that he had ever heard of Oswald. 
However, when his consular officers said they had 
reported to Castro on Oswald’s visit to their office in 
Mexico City, Castro admitted it but improved on the 
story, saying not only that Oswald had gotten angry over 
not receiving a Cuban visa, but that he had stormed out, 
threatening to kill Kennedy and slamming the consulate 
door behind him. The consulate employees denied 
Oswald had threatened to kill Kennedy, and no one seems 
to have wondered what connection such a remark could 
have had anyway with the refusal of a Cuban visa. Castro 

was apparently just trying to improve on the 
disinformation suggestions he had undoubtedly received 
from the KGB. As time went on, Castro, like the KGB, 
settled for simply blaming the CIA for the assassination.^^ 

When I was working for Nicolae Ceau§escu, I always 

tried to find a way to help him reach a decision on his 
own, rather than telling him directly what I thought he 
should do about something. That way, both of us were 
happy. From our KGB advisors, I had learned that the 
best way to put over a deception was to let the target see 
something for himself, with his own eyes. Not 
surprisingly, there are two cleverly executed and 
spectacularly successful examples of this tactic that turn 
up as part of the KGB disinformation operation connected 
with the Kennedy assassination. 

In November 1963, Morris Childs, the number two 
man in the American Communist Party (which he had 
joined in 1919!), was on his annual visit to Moscow for 
the purpose of requesting money and receiving policy 
instructions. On November 22, as news of the 
assassination broke, Morris was summoned to the office 
of Boris Ponomarev, the powerful chairman of the 
International Department of the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party. The two men had just begun discussing 
how the American party should react when a couple of 

party underlings burst in, their faces ashen. In Russian, 
which Morris had never admitted to understanding, they 
breathlessly briefed Ponomarev on Oswald’s arrest, 
blurting out that he was a former US Marine who had 
defected to the Soviet Union, but that after he had 
attempted suicide, Soviet psychiatrists had concluded he 
was unbalanced, so the Soviets were glad to be rid of him 
when he asked to go back to the United States. The 
storytellers excitedly added that the KGB had just sworn 
to the Kremlin that it had never had any operational 
relationship with him. 

Suddenly the storytellers noticed Morris — “the 
American” — and asked what he should be told. 

Ponomarev vouched for him and said he should be told 
the truth. The talented actors then retold the same story, 
which was relayed to Morris through an interpreter. The 
Soviets beseeched Morris to believe they had nothing to 
do with the assassination. 

In fact, since 1951, Morris Childs had been a very 
sensitive FBI agent, whose reporting was considered to be 
completely reliable and whose identity was never revealed 
to anyone until 1995, when John Barron received 
permission to publish Operation Solo: The FBFs Man in 
the Kremlin, from which the above account is taken. 

In 1993, before the publication of Solo, my wife and I 
had enjoyed a long lunch with John Barron, hosted by 
Alfred Regnery, who had published my book Red 

Horizons and had just read the outline of a book on the 
Kennedy assassination I was writing. At lunch, the 
discussion centered around Morris’s diary, which Barron 
had just obtained from Morris’s widow, and around A1 
Regnery’s intention to publish it as a book. During that 
lunch, I learned that Morris’s information was regularly 
and anonymously distributed to top members of the US 
government on an “eyes only” basis. Barron’s book, 
published in 1995, contains convincing evidence that 
Morris was a very trusted FBI agent and that the 
information he provided to the FBI played a decisive role 
in the decision of the Warren Commission — and later, of 
the House Committee on Assassinations — not to consider 
any Soviet bloc hand in President Kennedy’s 

There is no question that Morris Childs, as well as his 
brother Jack, who had both once been loyal members of 
the American Communist Party, were by 1951 and for the 
rest of their lives absolutely reliable and devoted FBI 
sources. Morris was mainly involved with policy 
guidelines and Jack with funds, both of which 
commodities they obtained from the Soviet Communist 
Party and passed on to its American subsidiary. Even after 
1963, both brothers continued to meet with their 
communist contacts and both remained confident the 
Soviets trusted them.^^ 

According to the Mitrokhin Archive, however, in 

1974, the KGB component responsible for operations in 
the United States became suspicious of Morris Childs 
because of certain anomalies in his background. Jack, 
then, also fell under suspicion for similar reasons. Both 
brothers had been leading figures in the American party 
since its early days and both had switched their allegiance 
to the FBI in 1951. (Morris was the number two man in 
the overt party and Jack an important member of the 
underground party, who picked up the funds for the party 
through clandestine meetings with KGB officers. By the 
1970s, the working-level KGB officers responsible for 
espionage in the United States had wondered if the 
brothers might be reporting to the FBI, especially because 
the brothers had experienced no ill effects from the 
anticommunist “witch-hunts” of the 1950s.) 

Although in the 1970s the working level of the KGB 
periodically recommended that the party replace both 
brothers, the party dragged its feet and took no action for 
various reasons, mostly saying the head of the party in the 
United States was happy with them. Morris finally retired 
from his party position in 1981, and Jack died that same 
year. Both brothers had been highly decorated by the 
Soviets in the 1970s — in 1977 the party even threw a 
special birthday party for Morris, attended by KGB 
chairman Andropov, party International Department 
chairman Ponomarev, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, and 
about half the Politburo. Brezhnev pinned the Order of the 
Red Banner, a high honor, on Morris’s lapel. (At the same 

time, Jack was given the same award, which he would 
receive the next time he went to Moscow.)^^ 

Putting all of the above information on the Childs 
brothers together, we must inevitably conclude that the 
top levels of both the KGB and the Soviet Communist 
Party had long understood — since at least 1 963 and 
probably much earlier — that Morris and Jack Childs were 
reporting to the FBI. Instead of dumping or even arresting 
them, the KGB and party leadership realized they could 
use the brothers as unwitting conduits for disinformation. 
The brothers would not only pass the Kremlin’s political 
messages to the American party, but they would also act 
as superbly credible sources for the disinformation the 
Kremlin wished to convey to the American government. 
When the incredible happened and Oswald did succeed in 
killing President Kennedy, the Kremlin went into 
overdrive to convince both Childs brothers separately that 
the Soviets had nothing to do with it. 

The show put on for Morris on November 22, 1963, 
was unquestionably a farce, deliberately staged as part of 
the Kennedy assassination disinformation operation. The 
Soviets certainly knew that Morris spoke Russian as he 
had spent the first nine years of his life in tsarist Russia, 
and later three years at the Communist Party’s Lenin 
School in Moscow, where he had even been recruited by 
the KGB predecessor as an informant. Moreover, it is 
incredible that any party flunkies would have dared to 

break into Ponomarev’s meeting with an American, to say 
nothing of their having spoken freely about such 
extremely sensitive matters as Oswald’s background or 
KGB file records. 

As a marvelous bonus, the Mitrokhin Archive 
completes the picture. Although the First (US) 

Department of the KGB’s foreign directorate spotted 
weak points in the backgrounds of the Childs brothers and 
kept urging the party to drop them, the top KGB and party 
leaders knew perfectly well that the brothers were 
reporting to the FBI. The interruption of Ponomarev’s 
meeting with Morris on November 22, was clearly 
planned deliberately, so that he would convince the FBI 
(and thus also the top level of the American government) 
of the lie that the Soviets had had absolutely nothing to do 
with Kennedy’s assassination. 

Remarkably, another staged performance took place in 
Cuba on that very same day of November 22, 1963 — an 
“amazing coincidence,” as Fidel Castro would call what 
happened. On that afternoon, Fidel hosted a luncheon at 
his Varadero beach house outside of Havana, to honor 
Jean Daniel, the distinguished French correspondent of 
the Parisian weekly L 'Express. The latter had been 
visiting Cuba for several weeks and had already spent a 
couple of days with Castro. About a dozen people — 
Castro, Daniel and his wife, and nine or ten other Cubans 
— were sitting around a table, when Cuba’s figurehead 
president called on the telephone with preliminary news 

of the Kennedy assassination attempt. Fidel took the call 
in the presence of his guests, who heard him exclaim in 
astonishment: '‘iComo? ^Un atentado?'' (What? An 
assassination attempt?). Fidel seemed genuinely shocked, 
but he had the presence of mind to ask immediately who 
the vice president was. When it was shortly thereafter 
learned that the president was dead, Castro expressed 
alarm, saying: “They will have to find the assassin 
quickly, otherwise you watch and see, they will try to 
blame us.” Brian Latell, after reporting the above story in 
his book, perceptively points out that Castro may have 
had an ulterior motive for arranging that luncheon with 
such care, “and with the expectation that Jean Daniel 
would write one or more widely circulated articles.” 
Indeed, two articles by Daniel soon appeared in the New 
Republic describing the above scene. Because Daniel was 
a journalist of impeccable reputation, no one would ever 
question where Castro was when he heard the news, or his 
surprise over it.^^ But why did Fidel worry about who the 
vice president was, even before the president was reported 
mortally wounded? And why was he afraid people would 
blame Cuba, before anyone knew who the assassin was? 

In any case, it seems clear that Fidel Castro was doing his 
best to support the KGB’s disinformation operation by 
denying any Cuban involvement in the assassination and 
by trying to peddle some of the KGB’s suggested 
solutions to the crime. 

Jack Childs also played a role in the disinformation 

operation mounted after the assassination. The 
Communist Party had introduced Jack to Fidel Castro in 
May 1963, during the latter’s first visit to Moscow. The 
two seemed to get along well together, so in May 1964, 
the Soviet Communist Party sent Jack from Moscow to 
Havana, after coaching him in how to deal with Castro, 
who allegedly needed someone to talk to. After cooling 
his heels for nine days, on the tenth day Jack was finally 
summoned by Fidel. They were discussing party relations 
between the United States and Cuba, when out of the blue 
Fidel asked: “Do you think Oswald killed President 
Kennedy?” Castro then answered his own question, 
saying his people had experimented with a gun similar to 
the one Oswald had used, and they had concluded it was 
impossible for one person to have fired the three reported 
shots in such short succession — it had to have been a 
conspiracy. He also told Jack Childs that Oswald had 
stormed out of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City after 
being refused a visa, saying “Em going to kill Kennedy 
for this.” Jack, of course, reported this back not only to 
the American party, but especially to the FBI, which did 
give it to the Warren Commission, although FBI director 
Hoover trivialized it, convinced there had been no 

Now we can understand why Morris and Jack Childs 
were both awarded the Order of the Red Banner with 
great ceremony at the Kremlin in 1977. 

The jewel in the crown of Soviet disinformation 
connected with Oswald’s story is the recently published 
revelation that the U-2 spy plane flown by Powers over 
the Soviet Union was not shot down by Soviet rockets, as 
the Russians have always claimed, but by a Sukhoi Su-9 
plane that had been especially modified to achieve higher 
altitudes by having its weapons removed. According to 
the recently published revelations of Soviet Capt. Igor 
Mentyukov, the pilot of that airplane, he had caught the 
U-2 in the slipstream of his unarmed Su-9, causing the U- 
2 to flip over and break its wings. The salvo of Soviet 
rockets had indeed scored a hit, downing a pursuing MiG- 
19, but not the U-2.^^ (In an article about the downing of 
Powers’s U-2 plane, published in the US in 2000, 
Khrushchev’s son Sergei acknowledged that the Soviets 
fired three SA-2 rockets, but only one ignited. Unsure 
about their success, the Soviets fired thirteen further 
antiaircraft missiles, but the later rockets hit a pursuing 
MiG- 19 piloted by Sr. Lt. Sergey Safronov, who was 
posthumously awarded the Order of the Red Banner.^"^) 

According to Captain Mentyukov, the U-2 flight 
altitude was higher than the altitude the Soviet rockets 
could reach. He also noted that the pilot of the U-2 plane 
would have certainly died if his frail plane had been hit by 
a rocket.^^ 

It seems that, after Oswald provided the KGB with the 

highly secret flight altitude of the U-2 plane, the KGB 
prepared a specially modified airplane, keeping it ready to 
intercept the US spy plane. This measure provided an 
additional bonus: the U-2 pilot was captured alive. 
Khrushchev did indeed parade Powers and used him as 

“The most valuable May Day present we’ve ever 
given the Comrade,” I heard Sakharovsky say. 







In discussing yuri andropov’S legacy, Western 
Sovietologists usually focus on his brutal suppression of 
political dissidents, his role in igniting the violent 
suppression of the 1956 uprising in Hungary (where he 
was ambassador at the time), his role in preparing the 
1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, and his pressure on the 
Polish regime to impose martial law. In contrast, the 
leaders of the Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when 
I was one of them, looked upon Andropov as the father of 
a new disinformation era, which revived anti-Semitism 
and generated international terrorism against the United 
States and Israel. 

The grisly decapitation and dismembering of Wall 
Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 symbolizes 
Andropov’s legacy. The mastermind of the September 11, 
2001, attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gmesomely 
murdered Pearl solely because he was an American Jew. 
The Kremlin’s continued silence about the framing of 
Pius XII, who was politically decapitated in part because 
he had protected the Jews, symbolizes another Andropov 

Andropov was the first head of the KGB to be 
enthroned in the Kremlin. As a former ambassador and 
afterward head of the Soviet Communist Party’s 
department responsible for relations with the ruling 
parties in communist countries, his interests lay abroad, 
and that is where he directed the cutting edge of the KGB 
sword. Andropov extended Khrushchev’s policy of 
individually framing religious and political leaders 
disliked by the Kremlin, such as Pius XII and US 
presidents, to framing entire religious movements and 
whole countries. Zionism, Israel, and the United States 
were his main targets. 

Andropov began his unprecedented fifteen years as 
KGB chairman only a couple of years after the framing of 
Pius XII, and just months before the 1967 Six-Day Arab- 
Israeli War, in which Israel humiliated the Soviet Union’s 
most important allies in the Arab world at that time — 
Egypt and Syria. In those days, the governments of those 
two countries were in effect being run by Soviet advisers. 

The new KGB chairman decided to repair the 
Kremlin’s prestige by humiliating Israel. Toward the end 
of that year, Andropov introduced a new arrow into the 
KGB’s quiver — ^presenting Zionism as Nazi-style racism, 
and hijacking “Zionist” El A1 airplanes. Before 1969 
came to an end, Palestinian terrorists trained at the KGB’s 
Balashikha special-operations school east of Moscow had 
hijacked their first “Zionist” El A1 plane and landed it in 
Algeria, where its thirty-two Jewish passengers were held 
hostage for five weeks. The hijacking had been planned 
and coordinated by the KGB’s Thirteenth Department, 
known in Soviet bloc intelligence jargon as the 
Department for Wet Affairs {wet being a KGB 
euphemism for bloody). To conceal the KGB’s hand, 
Andropov had the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine (created and financed by the KGB) take credit 
for the hijacking. 

The media frenzy generated by that terrorist operation 
convinced Andropov that airplane hijacking was the 
weapon of the future. He therefore extended the 
hijackings from Israeli planes to any other “Zionisf ’ 
flying target of opportunity. During the next two years, 
various Palestinian terrorists (trained by the KGB) took 
credit for hijacking thirteen Israeli and Western passenger 
planes and for blowing up a SwissAir plane in flight, 
killing forty-seven passengers and crewmembers. 

The huge political “success” brought about by the 

hijacking of “Zionist airplanes” prompted Andropov to 
expand into organizing “public executions” of “Zionists” 
in airports, train stations, and other public places. 
Andropov’s puppet Dr. George Habash, leader of the 
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and a 
fanatical Marxist, mirrored the true colors of the new 
terrorist tactic: “Killing one Jew far from the field of 
battle is more effective than killing a hundred Jews on the 
field of battle, because it attracts more attention.”^ 

The most important “anti-Zionist” operations for 
which the KGB took secret credit while I was still in 
Romania include: 

December 1968, attack on an El A1 plane in the Athens 

February 1969, attack on the El A1 office in Zurich 

November 1969, armed attack on the El A1 office in 
Athens, leaving 1 dead and 14 wounded 

May 30, 1972, Ben Gurion Airport attack, leaving 22 dead 
and 76 wounded 

September 1973, Vienna train attack 

December 1974, Tel Aviv movie theater bomb, leaving 2 
dead and 66 wounded 

March 1975, attack on Tel Aviv hotel, leaving 25 dead and 
6 wounded 

May 1975, Jerusalem bomb, leaving 1 dead, 3 wounded 

July 4, 1975, bomb in Zion Square, Jerusalem, leaving 15 

dead and 62 wounded 

April 1978, Brussels airport attaek, leaving 12 wounded 

May 1978, attaek on an El A1 plane in Paris, leaving 12 


By 1972, Andropov’s disinformation machinery was 
working around the clock to persuade the Islamic world 
that Israel and the United States intended to transform the 
rest of the world into a Zionist fiefdom. According to 
Andropov, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which the 
KGB community could nurture a virulent strain of 
America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist- 
Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. 

The message was simple: The Muslims had a taste for 
nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Andropov 
pontificated that “we” should make them feel sick to their 
stomachs just thinking about that “Council of the Elders 
of Zion” (meaning the US Congress), the aim of which 
was to have the Jews take over the world. We should 
whip up their illiterate, oppressed mobs to a fever pitch. 
Terrorism and violence against Israel and America would 
flow naturally from the Muslims’ anti-Semitic fervor, 
Andropov explained.^ 

The Kremlin has always been a strong advocate of 

divide et impera. The split between the Judeo and the 
Christian worlds generated by the framing of Pius XII 
proved that this archaic strategy of divide and conquer 
worked in modem times as well. In 1972, Andropov 
launched Operation “SIG” (Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, 
Zionist Governments). This was the code name for a 
“socialist division of labor” aimed at turning the Islamic 
world into an “explosive” enemy of the United States. 

The Romanian DIE’s sphere of influence for the operation 
embraced Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, where 
Romania was involved in building hospitals, schools, and 
roads and maintained large colonies of builders, doctors, 
and teachers. The DIE’s task was to scour Romania for 
tmsted Communist Party activists belonging to Islamic 
ethnic groups, train them in dezinformatsiya and terrorist 
operations, and infiltrate them into its target countries. 
They would be charged with the task of implanting a 
rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by 
manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by 
many people in that part of the world. 

Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, the DIE had 
sent about five hundred undercover agents to its Islamic 
target countries — and, as I later learned, it continued to 
send such agents until the Soviet bloc collapsed, in 1989. 
Most of them were engineers, medical doctors, teachers, 
and art instructors. According to a rough estimate 
received from Moscow, by 1978 the Soviet bloc 
intelligence community had sent some four thousand such 

agents of influence into the Islamic world. The 
assumption was that about 70-75 percent of those assets 
would end up being really useful. 

In 1972, the DIE received from the KGB an Arabic 
translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion along 
with “documentary” material, also in Arabic, “proving” 
that the United States was a Zionist country whose aim 
was to transform the Islamic world into a Jewish fiefdom. 
The DIE was ordered to “discreetly” disseminate both 
“documents” within its targeted Islamic countries. During 
my later years in Romania, every month the DIE 
disseminated thousands of copies throughout its Islamic 
sphere of influence. In the meetings I had with my 
counterparts in the Hungarian and Bulgarian services, 
with whom I enjoyed particularly close relations at that 
time, I learned that they were also sending such influence 
agents into their own Islamic spheres of influence. 

On one of my visits to Budapest, I met Janos Kadar, 
the Hungarian leader. Operation SIG was one of the 
subjects in which Kadar was particularly interested. I was 
aware that Kadar had founded Hungary’s foreign 
intelligence service, but that had been in 1949. By the 
time we met, I assumed Kadar would surely have 
thousands of more important things on his mind, but that 
proved wrong. Operation SIG was uppermost in the 
minds of Soviet bloc leaders in those days. A few years 

later, when I became Ceau§escu’s national security 

adviser (in addition to my DIE duties), the Romanian 
leader asked me to report periodically on the number of 
influence agents sent to the Arab and Islamic countries. 

How much influence did all those operations have? No 
one can say for sure, just as no one can exactly measure 
how much damage the framing of Pius XII has generated. 
Nevertheless, over the course of twenty-plus years, the 
cumulative effect of sending out thousands of influence 
agents and hundreds of thousands of copies of the 
Protocols of the Elders of Zion into the Islamic world 
certainly made some dent. Witness the 1979 takeover of 
the US Embassy in Tehran, the 1983 bombing of the US 
Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of the 
World Trade Center in New York, the 1998 destruction of 
the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and, of course, 
the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 
on September 11, 2001. 

Soon after launching Operation “SIG,” Andropov 
unleashed Operation “TayfuE' (Russian for typhoon), 
aimed at expanding international terrorism into Western 
Europe. As was usual for such international operations, 
the KGB established another “socialist division of labor” 
to mobilize the entire bloc intelligence community in 
support of its extended terrorist war. The Soviet Union 
would assume the most difficult tasks, those of creating 
new terrorist organizations, indoctrinating their members, 
and providing intelligence, money, and political support 
for terrorist operations — which Andropov called “armed 


The Czechoslovakian foreign intelligence service was 
charged with supplying terrorists with an odorless plastic 
explosive (Semtex-H) that could not be detected by 
sniffer dogs at airports. In 1990, Czechoslovakian 
president Vaclav Havel acknowledged that the communist 
regime of his country had secretly shipped a thousand 
tons of this odorless plastic explosive to Palestinian and 
Libyan terrorists. According to Havel, a mere two 
hundred grams was enough to blow up a commercial 
plane in flight. “World terrorism has supplies of Semtex 
to last 150 years,” Havel estimated.^ 

The East Germans had to provide the terrorists with 
arms and ammunition. According to secret documents 
found after the fall of the Berlin Wall in the archives of 
the East German Ministry for State Security, colloquially 
known as the Stasi, in 1983 alone its foreign intelligence 
service provided the PLO with $1,877,600 worth of AK- 
47 ammunition."^ 

The Cubans mass-produced concealment devices for 
transporting the plastic explosive and weapons into the 
target countries. In 1972, 1 spent a “working vacation” in 
Havana as the guest of Raiil Castro, at that time head of 
Cuba’s military and security forces, and visited what 
proved to be the Soviet bloc’s largest factory for 
manufacturing double-walled suitcases and other 
concealment devices for use in secretly transporting 

weapons. General Sergio del Valle Jimenez, Cuba’s 
minister of interior, told me that smuggling arms to “anti- 
Zionist terrorist organizations” was one of his main jobs. 

Romania’s task in that joint venture was to produce 
false Western passports needed by Andropov’s “freedom 
fighters.” During my last six years in Romania, the DIE 
became the Soviet bloc’s main manufacturer of forged 
West German, Austrian, French, British, Italian, and 
Spanish passports, which were regularly provided to 
international terrorist organizations and groups. The DIE 
also handcrafted a large collection of entrance visa stamps 
from all around the world, needed by terrorists to travel to 
their target countries. 

In the mid-1970s, a wave of terrorism inundated 
Western Europe. Tayfun's first major accomplishment 
was the assassination of Richard Welch, the CIA station 
chief in Athens, on December 23, 1975. That was 
followed by: a bomb attack on Gen. Alexander Haig, 
commander of NATO in Brussels, who was not injured 
although his armored Mercedes limousine was damaged 
beyond repair; a rocket attack against Gen. Frederick J. 
Kroesen, commander of US Forces in Europe, who also 
escaped alive; a grenade attack against Alfred 
Herrhausen, the pro-American chairman of the Deutsche 
Bank, who was killed; and an assassination attempt on 
Hans Neusel, a pro-American state secretary at the West 
German Ministry of Interior responsible for internal 
security affairs, who was wounded. 

When the Soviet bloc collapsed in December 1989, 
those terrorist operations went poof! and scores of KGB- 
sponsored terrorists were arrested in the former East 
Germany. Peter Michael Diestel, who became East 
Germany’s interior minister after the fall of its communist 
government, acknowledged in 1990 that Schonefeld 
Airport in East Berlin had for years been “a turntable for 
terrorists of all kinds.” Christian Lochte, a senior official 
in the West German counterintelligence service,^ stated 
that the KGB and the Stasi had done “everything possible 
to destabilize this country and the rest of Western Europe 
as well.”^ Moreover, the West German government 
uncovered evidence that the Stasi had also trained 
Palestinian terrorist groups in East Germany and in 
southern Yemen and that it had been involved in the 1986 
Libyan bombing of the La Belle discotheque in West 
Berlin, which killed two American soldiers and wounded 
229 other people.^ 

In November 1982, Yuri Andropov became the first KGB 
officer to head the Soviet Union. Once on the Kremlin 
throne, he used the foreign intelligence machinery to 
introduce himself to the West as a “moderate” communist 
and a sensitive, warm. Western-oriented man. He was 
depicted as someone who enjoyed an occasional drink of 
Scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved listening 

to American jazz and the music of Beethoven. I knew him 
well. Andropov was none of the above. 

Already terminally ill when he seized power, 
Andropov did not have time to do much more than project 
his new image. He did, however, promote the fortunes of 
his protege, a vigorous and callous young professional 
communist who, as the world would soon learn, shared 
his mentor’s views on the importance of deception and 
influence operations: Mikhail Gorbachev. 

Gorbachev began his career, as had Andropov, in 
Stavropol, and Andropov soon engineered Gorbachev’s 
appointment to the Soviet Politburo. One Gorbachev 
biographer says that Gorbachev was Andropov’s 
“principal organizer and his ‘crown prince.’”^ 

Gorbachev’s glasnost and its unplanned, spectacular 
outcome in Eastern Europe made him an instant hit in the 
West, for a while. Public opinion in the Soviet Union, 
however, was a different matter. Able to speak freely after 
enduring almost three- quarters of a century with their 
mouths metaphorically wired shut, the Soviets spent most 
of their time venting their pent-up angers and frustrations. 
Everybody began fighting everybody else and waiting for 
another miracle. In real life, of course, economic miracles 
do not happen by themselves. The stores became emptier 
than ever, and millions of Soviets started blaming the man 
who had allowed them to voice that blame. Suddenly, the 
privileged Moscow nomenklatura decided that the 

president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, looked 
like a loser, and it sought help from the political police 
and its “science of dezinformatsiyar the usual way out of 
a tight spot in a Kremlin balance-of-power struggle. 

On June 22, 1991, Vladimir Kryuchkov, the chairman 
of the KGB, informed the Soviet parliament that the 
motherland was on the brink of catastrophe. He then 
revealed “reliable” KGB information showing that 
Western intelligence services were drawing up plans for 
the pacification and even occupation of the Soviet Union. 
By remarkable coincidence, his speech was 
“clandestinely” videotaped and broadcast on Soviet 
television that same evening. Two months later, the world 
was horrified by news of a coup d’etat in Moscow. On 
August 18, 1991, following a pattern similar to the one it 
had used to oust Nikita Khrushchev, the KGB arrested a 
vacationing Gorbachev at his summer residence in the 
Crimea, took over the Kremlin, and paraded its own 
military might on the streets of Moscow. 

On the orders of the self-proclaimed “State Committee 
on the Emergency Situation,” created by the coup’s 
leaders, who included Vladimir Kryuchkov, KGB troops 
also surrounded the headquarters of the first freely elected 
president of the Russian Republic, Boris Yeltsin. 
Thousands of unarmed citizens gathered to defend the 
building. A small insurgent tank unit switched sides, and 
President Yeltsin, standing on one of these tanks, made a 
passionate appeal to the people of Moscow to preserve the 

“Soviet order.”^ That speech, televised worldwide, 
constituted the birth certificate of a new Soviet star. 



By 1999, President Yeltsin’s ill-conceived privatization 
had enabled a small clique of predatory insiders to 
plunder Russia’s most valuable assets. The looting had 
become so outrageous that people attending auctions of 
state-owned businesses started carrying banners with a 
slogan that would become commonplace: privatizatsiya 
(privatization) = prikhvatizatsiy a (grabbing).^ “They are 
stealing absolutely everything and it is impossible to stop 
them,” said Anatoly Chubais, the Yeltsin-appointed tsar 
of this privatization, who acquired a good part of Russia’s 
energy industry and became a billionaire himself.^ The 
corruption generated by this widespread looting 
penetrated every comer of the country, and it eventually 
created a Mafia- style economic system that threatened the 

stability of Russia itself. 

During this time, a small number of businessmen and 
investors were able to make large fortunes by recognizing 
and taking advantage of imperfections in the developing 
markets. Most of these oligarchs, as they came to be 
known, are now in prison or in exile. Only a few have 
managed to thrive under Putin. 

Much has been made of the fact that in this anti- 
Semitic nation, of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50 
percent of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were 
Jewish. Ironic as it seems, anti-Semitism actually made it 
easier for them to make their billions. As reported in the 
British press, since the Soviet Union restricted Jews’ 
ability to assimilate and rise up in society, “Jews who 
wanted to get ahead were forced into the black market 
economy. When communism collapsed and the black 
market was legalized as free market capitalism, the Jewish 
entrepreneurs had a head start. 

Of course, since Putin took power, most of the original 
Jewish oligarchs have fled the nation. 

By July 1998, the ruble had lost 75 percent of its past 
year’s value, short-term interest rates had climbed from 
21 percent to 60 percent, and the stock market had 
slumped by more than 60 percent. Petropavlovsk, the 
capital of Kamchatka, and a few other smaller towns were 
deprived of electricity as a result of unpaid bills. ^ Yeltsin 
unsuccessfully tried to solve the crisis by sacking two 

prime ministers within six months — Viktor Chernomyrdin 
in March, and Sergey Kiriyenko in August. 

As of 1999, the Kremlin was reporting more and more 
frequently that Russia’s first freely elected president, 

Boris Yeltsin, was suffering from a “cold.” When the 
Russian media recalled that, in the past, “colds” had 
proved lethal for some of the country’s rulers (former 
presidents Konstantin Chernenko and Yuri Andropov 
were dead within weeks after catching “colds”), the 
Kremlin shifted course and said that Yeltsin had the “flu,” 
which later proved to be a euphemism for a heart problem 
that necessitated a multiple bypass operation. Soon after 
that, Yeltsin came down with one more “cold” — this time 
allegedly the result of a postsauna chill — which 
metamorphosed into a two-month bout of pneumonia and 
created another presidential stagnation.^ To top it all off, 
an influential Moscow newspaper was already reporting 
that a putsch against the ailing Yeltsin was in the 

There is reason to conclude that his failing health, 
combined with the fear that he might be thrown out of 
power and accused of stealing billions and of 
dismembering the Soviet Union, eventually convinced a 
weakened Yeltsin to place his fate in the hands of 
Russia’s historically powerful political police. 

At the end of December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly 
abdicated. “I shouldn’t be in the way of the natural course 

of history,” he explained, speaking in front of a gaily- 
decorated New Year’s tree and a Russian flag with a 
golden eagle. “I understand that / must do it and Russia 
must enter the new millennium with new politicians, with 
new faces, with new intelligent, strong, energetic 
people.”^ Yeltsin then signed a decree stating that, under 
Article 92 Section 3 of the Russian Constitution, the 
power of the Russian president would be temporarily 
performed by the recently appointed Prime Minister 
Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin also announced that a special 
presidential election would be held around March 27, 
2000, and he made a strong appeal for people to vote for 
Putin — a former KGB general — ^who was “a strong 
person worthy of becoming president.”^ 

For his part, Putin signed a decree pardoning Yeltsin 
— who was reportedly connected to massive bribery 
scandals — “for any possible misdeeds” and granting him 
“total immunity” from being prosecuted (or even searched 
and questioned) for “any and all” actions committed while 
in office. Putin also gave Yeltsin a lifetime pension and a 
state dacha (summer home).^ 

This had all the appearances of a behind-the-scenes 
KGB putsch. The events that preceded and those that 
followed Putin’s sudden promotion strongly suggest that 
it was. Yeltsin made history by outlawing the Communist 
Party and dissolving the Soviet Union. Putin, however, 
began to rebuild the country’s confidence in its Soviet 

institutions. He spoke publicly and with fondness about 
his years in the KGB, claiming to have inherited his 
desire to work for this institution from his grandfather, 
who was a cook at one of Stalin’s dachas, and from his 
father, who had “links” of some kind to the KGB — 
meaning at the least that he reported on his friends and 
neighbors. Putin asked his nation to understand that the 
secret police agency “works in the interest of the state.” 
He argued for patience, pointing out that “90 percent” of 
all KGB intelligence was collected with the collaboration 
of ordinary citizens. 

This spin worked with the Russian people, who 
regarded Putin as disarmingly honest. Their admiration 
for him began in December 1999, when as prime minister 
he viciously lashed out at Soviet defectors, calling his 
former colleague General Oleg Kalugin, who had quit the 
KGB after the August 1991 coup and settled in the United 
States, a “traitor” and an “absolute loafer.”^ ^ Soviet 
people were still highly addicted to Soviet anti- 
Americanism. Putin then went to the Lubyanka, the 
building that has headquartered the Soviet Union’s 
political police since its creation, to celebrate the birth of 
the Cheka, the first Soviet political police organization, 
founded on December 20, 1917. “Several years ago, we 
fell prey to the illusion that we have no enemies,” Putin 
told a meeting of top security officials. “We have paid 
dearly for this. Russia has its own national interests, and 

we have to defend them.”^^ 

The next day, December 21, 1999, Putin organized a 
closed-door reception in his Kremlin office, allegedly for 
politicians who had won seats in the Duma. By 
coincidence, that was also Stalin’s 120th birthday, and 
Putin took the opportunity to raise a glass to good old 
Stalin. According to the Russian magazine Novaya 
Gazeta, his toast was addressed to “Dzhugashvili.” Stalin, 
meaning man of steel, was the dictator’s nom de guerre; 
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was his real name.^"^ 

A couple of days later, in a fourteen-page article titled 
“Russia on the Threshold of a New Millennium,” Putin 
defined Russia’s new political future: “The state must be 
where and as needed; freedom must be where and as 
required.” In the same article, Putin labeled the 
Chechens’ effort to regain their independence as 
“terrorism,” and he pledged to eradicate it: “We’ll get 
them anywhere — if we find terrorists sitting in the 
outhouse, then we will piss on them there. The matter is 

In March 2000, Putin was officially elected president, 
but people did not know who he really was. His framers 
introduced into Russian schoolbooks a page of purple 
prose dedicated to the young Volodya Putin, depicting 
him as a national hero: 

This is your president, the one responsible for everything in 
this eountry. He is not afraid of anything. He flies in fighter 

planes, skis down mountains and goes where there is 
fighting to stop wars. And all the other presidents of other 
eountries meet with him and respeet him very mueh. And 
they show this on television and write about it in 
newspapers. Then he had so many friends — the entire 
eountry of Russia — and they eleeted him president. Now 

every one says: Russia, Putin, Unity! 

The cover of some of these schoolbooks, released in 
September 2000, carried a drawing of a boy resembling 
Putin who was pointing an accusing finger, apparently at 
a dishonest bureaucrat, and saying: “Comrade children! 
Be vigilant, know your rights. The media in Russia 
were also still largely state-controlled. They described the 
unknown Putin as a man of the people, someone who did 
not mince words but who, like regular folks, said what 
was on his mind.^^ 

By 2002, Russia was also mass-producing official 
portraits and busts of Putin — just as Romania had 

produced Ceau§escu’s when he was still unknown. Putin 

passed them off as mere state symbolism, like the flag or 
the national anthem, adding that he would be charmed if 
the portraits and busts would remain on people’s desks 
and walls after his term of office.^^ Russians will have to 
wait and see if there is going to be an “after” to his term 
of office. 

Once installed in the saddle, Putin ordered that the 
statue of Yuri Andropov be reinstated at the Lubyanka, 

from where it had been removed after the KGB coup in 
1991.^^ Andropov was the only other KGB officer to have 
been enthroned in the Kremlin, and it was therefore 
logical for Putin to pay homage to him. 

Putin took another page from Andropov’s book and 
started filling the most important Kremlin positions with 
undercover KGB officers, many of whom came from St. 
Petersburg — ^where Putin had most recently been 
assigned.^^ They would become known as 
“Putinburgers.”^^ He signed a decree creating a new 
structure to increase central Kremlin control over Russia’s 
ninety-eight administrative regions; he divided the 
country into seven “super” districts, each headed by a 
“presidential representative,”^"^ and he gave five of these 
seven new posts to former KGB officers. He also 
appointed former KGB general Viktor Ivanov as the 
deputy head of his administration.^^ 

Soon after that, former KGB officers became Russia’s 
ministers of foreign affairs and defense. Numerous others 
became high-ranking members of the government. In a 
brief interview with Ted Koppel of the ABC News 
program Nightline, Putin acknowledged that he had 
brought KGB officers to the Kremlin, but he explained 
that it was because he wanted to root out graft. “I have 
known them for many years and I trust them. It has 
nothing to do with ideology. It’s only a matter of their 
professional qualities and personal relationship.”^^ 

In reality, filling the most important government 
positions with undercover intelligence officers was 
another Russian tradition. The tsar’s Okhrana security 
service had its undercover agents planted everywhere, as 
Andropov pointed out to me in the early 1970s, when the 
Kremlin decided to Sovietize that traditionally Russian 
concept. Until 1913, Pravda itself was edited by such an 
agent, Roman Malinovsky, who had been recruited by the 
Okhrana while serving a jail term for theft and burglary. 
After he was released, the Okhrana covered up his 
criminal record and placed him in Lenin’s Communist 
Party, where he gradually rose to become the editor of 
Pravda and later Lenin’s deputy for Russia and chairman 
of the Bolshevik faction in the Duma.^^ According to 
Andropov, he was also one of Lenin’s best friends. The 
Okhrana’ s framing of Malinovsky worked wonders. 

From Andropov, I also learned that all Soviet bloc 
citizens responsible for running the diplomatic, foreign 
trade, economic, technological, and even religious 
activities in the West should now be made undercover 
intelligence officers. It was something like the wartime 
militarization of the government, but it had to be 
accomplished by the foreign intelligence service rather 

than the army. Ceau§escu’s Romania followed step. 

By 1978, when I broke with communism, the lines 
separating the top leadership of the country from the 
intelligence apparatus had become blurred. A couple of 

weeks after I was granted political asylum in the United 
States, the Western news media reported that my 
defection had unleashed the greatest political purge in the 

history of communist Romania. Ceau§escu fired one third 

of his cabinet members, demoted four Politburo members, 
and replaced twenty- two ambassadors. All were 
undercover DIE officers on whose military documents 
and pay vouchers I had regularly signed off. 

On December 31, 2000, President Putin, celebrating 
his first anniversary as president, announced that Russia 
had a new national anthem. In fact, the law signed by 
Putin restored the melody of Stalin’s national anthem, 
which had been prohibited after the collapse of the Soviet 
Union. Those original lyrics, written by the poet Sergey 
Mikhalkov, praised Stalin, Lenin, the Communist Party, 
and the “unbreakable” Soviet Union. At Khrushchev’s 
request, Mikhalkov wrote a second version of the lyrics, 
removing Stalin’s name, after his memory had become 
politically unpalatable. Mikhalkov has now again 
rewritten his lyrics, this time to satisfy Putin.^^ 

Yelena Bonner, the widow of the Nobel Peace Prize 
winner Andrey Sakharov, denounced Putin’s actions in 
this matter as a “profanation of history.” Putin disagreed, 
explaining: “We have overcome the differences between 
the past and the present. 

In April 2000, just seven days after Putin had been 
overwhelmingly elected Russia’s president, American 

businessman Edmund Pope was arrested by the FSB. He 
was charged with espionage, but his trial evolved into a 
farce. Professor Anatoly Babkin, the main FSB witness 
against Pope, recanted his testimony and stated that he 
had been forced to sign it. The FSB threatened to put 
Babkin in jail, but he still withdrew the charges. The 
Russian research institute where Babkin worked provided 
the court with documents showing that all the technical 
material given to Pope was unclassified and had been 
legally sold to him. Nevertheless, Pope was found guilty 
and was sentenced to twenty years in prison based on a 
verdict that was written in just two and a half hours. 

Once again, the United States had been framed to look 
like an enemy of Russia. Then, on December 12, 2000, 
Pope was magnanimously pardoned by President Putin,^^ 
just as other Americans ludicrously framed by the KGB 
had been pardoned by Putin’s predecessors. By that time 
the damage was done, however. Particularly for domestic 
consumption, the United States had once again been 
shown up as an enemy of Russia. Most Russians started 
looking at Putin with admiration — standing up to the 
almighty America was not a small matter. 

According to a March 2001 Russian government press 
release, a series of trumped-up, closed-door espionage 
trials against the United States were underway in Moscow 
on charges “so lacking in evidence and so far-fetched in 
their suppositions that at least three of them have been 

thrown out by Russian appeals courts. Those setbacks 
did not discourage Putin’s government, however, which, 
in each instance, responded to the not-guilty verdict by 
reopening the case against its target. 

In March 2001, for instance, Vladimir Moiseyev, a 
career Russian diplomat, was on his third trial for the 
same charge — spying for the United States and its main 
ally in Asia, South Korea. The “incriminating” document 
presented by the FSB turned out to be a copy of a speech 
that Moiseyev, an expert on South Korea, had delivered 
publicly. Nevertheless, since July 1998 he had been jailed 
by the FSB, whose then-chairman, Gen. Vladimir Putin, 
had publicly declared that the case “was proven beyond a 

Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union was deeply 
anti-American, and most Russians grew up hating the 
United States. That hatred now made them fall for Putin’s 

Putin is a difficult read, but the Russians are enthralled 
with him, partly for that very reason. The night of 
November 20, 1998 was shattering for millions of 
Russians: Galina Starovoitova, the country’s leading 
female political dissident, was shot dead in St. Petersburg. 
Her most trusted aide, Ruslan Linkov, was also shot but 
survived. During the Soviet years, Galina had worked 

with Nobel Prize-winner Andrei Sakharov, and she was 
still fighting the KGB, now rebaptized as FSB, which 
faced credible allegations that it had authored the 
assassination. While some ten thousand mourners 
gathered to pay their respects to Galina and to demand 
that the killers be brought to justice, Linkov was visited 
by his worst nightmare — Vladimir Putin, the head of the 
FSB. Putin held Linkov’ s hand for more than an hour and 
kept reassuring him: “It’s all going to be okay. It’s all 
going to be okay.”^^ 

Putin’s co-workers call him the “Gray Cardinal” for 
his secrecy and Vatican-like mastery of intrigue. The 
Russian people admire his icy-blue eyes as indicative of 
the strong, silent type, a real man, who chooses his few 
words with great care. Russians also love Byzantine 
deception — generations of them have kidded themselves 
about the glorious state of their country — and Putin makes 
them feel clever again. In 2000, for instance, while Putin 
was dining with King Juan Carlos in Madrid, word came 
out that the FSB had arrested Vladimir Gusinsky, 

Russia’s biggest media mogul. Putin originally pleaded 
ignorance. The next day, though, he revealed a surprising 
familiarity with the arrest. A week later, in Berlin, Putin 
condemned as “excessive” the measures taken against 
Gusinsky. Back in Moscow, Putin launched the rumor 
that the arrest was a provocation against himself. 
Eventually, the Kremlin-controlled MOST radio station 
insinuated that Gusinsky’ s arrest was an unfortunate 

retaliation for President Clinton’s public support for 
Gusinsky during his recent visit to Moscow. Case 

When you get right down to it, Putin’s magic derives 
from his following the tradition of cloaking himself in 
secrecy. Soviet rulers did not become known until after 
they were gone. It is true that one might get a glimpse of 
Putin’s love of karate through occasional carefully 
managed appearances, or by seeing pictures of him 
showing off as an older “Tarzan,” half-naked with a knife 
under his belt or a rifle in his hand, but on the whole Putin 
looks even less three-dimensional than his caricature-like 
Soviet predecessors did. 

Why should Putin be so secretive about himself in 
today’s Internet age? For one thing, he spent most of his 
working life as a spy and has secretiveness in his blood — 
no one was supposed to know what he did. Nor is Putin 
an “ideologue,” whose work and speeches can be 
scrutinized in a search for the man behind them. He is not 
a creator, but rather a creation. He is a product of the 
KGB, not a Lenin who built that KGB. He is a product of 
the Kremlin’s anti-Americanism, not a Stalin who 
spawned that anti-Americanism. He is a product of the 
Kremlin’s nuclear proliferation and anti-American 
terrorism, not a Khrushchev who authored both. 

During the old Soviet days, the West invented 
Kremlinology, a discipline of trying to decode whatever 

was going on behind the Kremlin’s wall of secrecy by, for 
instance, comparing the annual photos of the May Day 
parade to see which Politburo member stood closest to the 
ruler. Now we have Putinologists, like Prof. Stephen 
White of Glasgow University, Prof. Michael McFaul of 
Stanford University, and the Hoover Institution’s John 
Dunlop. They do their best with the meager information 
available on their subject, but it is nearly impossible for 
an outsider to put himself in the shoes of a man whose 
career was spent in the darkness of Soviet espionage and 
who has deception in his bones. 


SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 

With the framing of pius xii as “Hitler’s Pope,” the 
Kremlin began to make anti-Semitism an international 
movement. The low point came in 1975, when Yuri 
Andropov used the United Nations to officially brand 
Zionism as evil. The Soviet bloc dezinformatsiya 
machinery worked around the clock to persuade the 
leaders of Third World countries to adopt a UN resolution 
declaring that Zionism was “a form of racism and racial 
discrimination.” Officially presented as an Arab initiative, 
the resolution had actually been drafted in Moscow and 
was supported by Palestine Liberation Organization 
leader and KGB puppet Yasser Arafat, along with several 

friendly Arab governments, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and 
most of the Soviet bloc. 

The KGB community disseminated hundreds of anti- 
American and anti-Semitic cartoons around UN 
headquarters in New York. Andropov used to preach that, 
in the Third World, cartoons were much more convincing 
than documentary materials. By 1975, the clandestine 
distribution of cartoons around the premises of UN 
headquarters had become such a common Soviet bloc 
occurrence that my DIE had to assign a graphics expert 

(Maj. Gheorghe Ro§u) to its station in New York. 

Coauthor Rychlak interned at the United Nations in 1979, 
and he remembers seeing such propaganda at that time. 

That so-called Arab initiative was adopted as UN 
Resolution 3379 by seventy-two countries — actually only 
a slight majority, considering that thirty-five nations voted 
against it and thirty-two abstained. Soon after that, the 
Soviet bloc intelligence community unleashed a vitriolic 
dezinformatsiya campaign portraying the United States 
and Israel as Zionists. In December 1991, only a few 
months after the Soviet-led voting bloc disintegrated, that 
anti-Semitic resolution was repealed by the large margin 
of 1 1 1 to 25. Nevertheless, the UN continued to treat 
Israel as an enemy. By 2002, the United Nations General 
Assembly had passed 408 resolutions condemning Israel,^ 
the only UN member prohibited from holding a seat on 
the Security Council.^ The total number of votes cast 

against Israel up to that same date: 55,642.^ And on 
November 29, 2012, the UN General Assembly voted 
overwhelmingly — 138 to 9 (with 41 abstaining) — to 
upgrade the PLO’s status to a “non-member observer 

No Arab terrorist state or organization had been 
condemned by the UN. The reason? The Soviet bloc had 
successfully turned a significant part of this organization 
against Israel and its main supporter, the United States — 
the very country that had formulated its motto: “We the 
People of the United Nations, United for a Better World.” 
During my last ten years in Romania, the Soviet bloc 
intelligence community poured millions of dollars and 
thousands of people into this gigantic project. When I 
defected, virtually all UN employees and representatives 
from the communist countries (comprising one-third of 
the world’s population) and their Arab allies were secretly 
working, in one way or another, for the bloc’s espionage 
services. Their main task was to portray Israel and the 
United States as Zionist countries whose aim was to 
transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. 

In August 1998, one of Andropov’s pupils, KGB 
General Yevgeny Primakov, who rose as Russia’s spy 
chief after the Soviet Union collapsed, became prime 
minister. Under Primakov — who converted to rabid anti- 
Semitism during the years he spent as Soviet adviser to 
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein — anti-Semitism threatened to 

become a national policy in Russia. 

In October 1998, retired General Albert Makashov, 
then a member of the Duma, called for the “extermination 
of all Jews in Russia.” He insinuated that the Jews were 
being paid by American Zionism to ruin the motherland. 
Over and over again Russian television replayed 
Makashov screaming in the Duma: “I will round up all 
[the Jews] and send them to the next world. On 
November 4, 1998, the Duma defeated a parliamentary 
motion censuring Makashov’s hate-filled statement by a 
vote of 121-107. Eighty- three of the Communist Party’s 
132 members in the Duma voted against censure, and of 
the remainder, all but one declined to vote. At the 
November 7, 1998, demonstration marking the eighty- 
first anniversary of the October Revolution, crowds of 
former KGB officers showed their support for the general, 
chanting “Hands off Makashov!” and waving signs with 
anti-Semitic slogans.^ 

On August 3, 2001, ninety-eight US senators sent a 
letter to President Putin expressing concern about the rise 
of anti-Semitism in the Russian Federation: 

In years past, the US Senate has been united in its 
eondemnation of sueh virulent anti-Semitism, whieh, 
unfortunately, has been present during mueh of Russia’s 
history. Your remarks last year publiely eondemning anti- 
Semitism assume speeial signifieanee against a baekdrop of 
eenturies of tsarist and Stalinist perseeutions. We strongly 
eneourage you to eontinue to publiely eondemn anti- 

Semitism whenever it manifests itself in the Russian 
Federation. We also believe that it is important to baek up 

the rhetorie of eondemnation with the substanee of aetion.^ 

A few days later, however, a new KGB -style operation 
aimed at spreading hatred for Zionism and the Jews 
around the world mushroomed up. On August 31, 2001, a 
UN “World Conference on Racism, Racial 
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” 
opened in Durban, South Africa. A main objective was to 
approve another resolution asserting that Zionism was a 
brutal form of racism, and that the United States and 
Israel were its main supporters.^ Yasser Arafat, Fidel 
Castro, and the same gaggle of Arab and Third World 
governments that had supported the UN anti-Semitic 
Resolution No. 3379 in 197 5, urged participants to 
condemn Israel and the United States as Zionist powers 
who wanted to conquer the Islamic world. ^ 

Of course, at that very moment, Russia’s federal and 
local governments were being run by former officers of 
the same Soviet political police that had vandalized 
Jewish cemeteries in Germany and France, framed Pius 
XII as “Hitler’s Pope,” portrayed the United States and 
Israel as mortal enemies of the Islamic world, and been 
the ghostwriters of the UN’s anti-Semitic Resolution No. 
3379. The proceedings at the Durban conference reveal an 
unmistakable Soviet dezinformatsiya pattern. The day 
after Arafat’s speech, anti-Semitic cartoons carpeted the 

conference grounds. 

On September 3, 2001, the United States withdrew its 
delegation from Durban, charging that the UN conference 
had been “converted into a forum against Israel and 
Jews.”^ The Israeli government followed suit. On 
September 4, 2001, Congressman Tom Lantos, a member 
of the US delegation, told reporters, “This conference will 
stand self-condemned for yielding to extremists.” He 
added, “I am blaming them for hijacking this 

The September 11, 2001, attacks came eight days 
later. On that same day the KGB was celebrating 124 
years since the birth of its founder, Feliks Dzerzhinsky. 
The weapon of choice for that horrific act of terrorism 
that has changed the face of our world was the hijacked 
airplane, a concept that had been invented by the KGB. 

The anti-Semitism revived through Soviet disinformation 
has been transformed into bloody hatred for “American 
Zionism.” This is another legacy of Khrushchev’s and 
Andropov’s dezinformatsiya. After September 11, 2001, 
thousands of people in the Islamic world danced in the 
streets for days to celebrate the glorious victory over the 
American evil. Killing Americans, Jews, and their allies 
became a way to energize Islamic extremists by giving 
them “victories” to celebrate. In March 2002, a stream of 

Palestinians lined up in a Fatah-controlled refugee camp 
to pay their congratulations to the father and brother of 
eighteen-year-old Mohamed Daraghmed, who had just 
killed five children and four women in a suicide bombing 
attack in Israel. ^ ^ 

The imam of the leading mosque in New York (the 
Ninety-Sixth Street Mosque) claimed, in an interview 
published in Egypt, that the Jews were responsible for the 
World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. ‘Tt was 
Mossad and Israel that perpetrated those horrible crimes,” 
agreed Mohamed Ali Eliah, the imam of the Islamic 
House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. “How 
else do you explain that four thousand Jews didn’t show 
up for work at the Twin Towers the morning of 
September 11?”^^ 

The twenty-six-year-old Mohammad Junaid told 
Britain’s ITN television network: “My mother was in the 
north tower of the World Trade Center, but I still feel 
absolutely no remorse for what happened on September 
1 1 .” He added: “I may hold an American passport, but I 
am not an American — I am a Muslim.” Soon after that, 
Junaid, whose mother had been led to safety from the 
blazing World Trade Center by New York firefighters, 
bought a one-way ticket to Pakistan to sign up with the 
Taliban. “I will kill every American that I see in 
Afghanistan. And I’ll kill every American soldier that I 
see in Pakistan.” 

Eventually, Andropov’s new anti-American and anti- 
Jewish terrorism seems to have grown into a kind of a 
nefarious “science” threatening the whole civilized world. 
A seven-thousand-page Encyclopedia of Jihad (circulated 
in the form of a CD-ROM), was found in 1999 in the 
home of Arab terrorist Khalil Deck when he was arrested 
for allegedly plotting to bomb Jordan’s main airport on 
the eve of the millennium. The book’s eleventh volume 
(which is on a separate CD-ROM) details how to poison 
water and food supplies with ricin, a highly toxic 
chemical used by Moscow in terrorist actions, most 
notoriously in the umbrella- tip murder of Bulgarian 
dissident Georgi Markov, carried out in London by 
Andropov’s KGB and its Bulgarian puppet in 1978.^^ 




Was it mere coincidence that the September 11, 2001, 
terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Towers and 
the Pentagon took place on the very day that the KGB 
was celebrating the birthday of its founder, Feliks 
Dzerzhinsky? That is hard to know. By their very nature, 
foreign intelligence operations are secret, arcane and 
duplicitous undertakings. In the words of a former head of 
the British foreign intelligence service MI6, Stella 
Rimington, unraveling them is “like the unraveling of a 
knotted skein of wool. You get hold of an end and you 
have to follow it through until you are near enough to the 
heart of the knot to see what it consists of 

Let us try to unravel the skein tangled around 
September 1 1 . During the years I was at the top of the 
Soviet bloc intelligence community, I knew that 
symbolism constituted a very important secret message 
for the “initiated.” The Kremlin had a penchant for 
symbolism, another weapon of the emotions successfully 
wielded by all Russian tsars and their communist 
successors. The emblem of the Soviet Union consisted of 
a hammer and a sickle, to symbolize the alliance between 
the proletariat and the peasants. The emblem of the 
Kremlin’s political police was a sword and a shield, 
symbolizing its duties: to put the country’s enemies to the 
sword, and to shield and protect the communist 
revolution. Most of the KGB-financed international 
terrorist organizations were called “liberation” 
movements, to symbolize the Soviet bloc’s commitment 
to liberating the rest of the world from American 

Andropov and his East European viceroys raised a 
glass of champagne to celebrate the terrorist bomb that 
exploded in Jerusalem’s Zion Square on July 4, 1975, 
leaving fifteen dead and sixty- four wounded. That was 
clearly a slap at the United States, whose national day is 
the Fourth of July. It was also significant that the first 
attack on the World Trade Center, which was intended to 
knock the North Tower into the South Tower and to 
generate mass killing, took place on February 26, 1993, 
when the Kremlin was celebrating forty-one years since 

the first Soviet nuclear test. The suicide attack against the 
US Navy destroyer USS Cole, in which seventeen sailors 
were killed and 39 injured, took place on October 12, 
2000. That was the anniversary of the beginning of 
Israel’s major offensive of 1973, which was decisive in 
Israel’s winning the Yom Kippur War. The significance 
of the failed bombing attempts over Detroit and New 
York on Christmas Day 2009 needs no explanation. 

There are many other “coincidences” in the course of 
Russia’s recent policy decisions strongly suggesting that 
they were not accidental. In 2002, for instance, Putin and 
the ex-KGB officers who are now ruling Russia began 
openly moving their country back into the encampment of 
the former Soviet Union’s traditional clients — ^which had 
been the deadliest enemies of Zionism and the United 
States. Putin started out with the exact same three terrorist 
governments named by President George W. Bush as an 
“Axis of Evil” — Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. 

In March 2002, Putin quietly reinstituted the sale of 
Russian weapons to Iran. In August 2002, he concluded a 
$40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical 
regime in Iraq. Then, just before September 2002, while 
the United States was preparing to mourn its victims of 
the previous year’s terrorist attack, Putin received Kim 
Jung II, North Korea’s despicable dictator (who has since 
passed away) in Moscow with grand honors.^ At the same 
time, Putin began quietly helping the highly anti-Semitic 

government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to construct a 
1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr, with a 
uranium conversion facility able to produce fissile 
material for nuclear weapons. The West stood silent, just 
as it had stood silent. No one wanted to remember 
Ayatollah Khomeini’s dire threat of 1980: 

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism 
is another name for paganism. I say let this land bum. I say 
let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges 

triumphant in the rest of the world. ^ 

During the first decade of the century, a wave of 

new books violently asserting that Pius XII was “Hitler’s 
Pope” inundated the West.^ These books, beginning with 
John Cornwell’s 1999 book. Hitler's Pope, are being used 
to persuade young people to abandon Christianity and to 
move toward Islam. Rychlak has received letters from 
prisoners who complain that this is rampant in American 

The revival of Pius XII’s image as “Hitler’s Pope” is 
also pushing the world toward a nuclear midnight, 
prepared by Iran. Its first target is Israel. The rest of the 
Judeo-Christian world will come next. The 1945 nuclear 
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the 
immediate deaths of an estimated 80,000 people. When 
factoring in the deaths from the long-term effects of 
radiation, the total toll is estimated at 120,000. Today’s 

nuclear weapons are many times stronger. 

Khrushchev and his political necrophagy are to blame for 
the nightmare of the new Holocaust now facing us, 
carried out by a deeply anti-Semitic Iran armed with 
nuclear weapons and a dangerous North Korea. 
Khrushchev liked to portray himself as a peasant, but that 
was misleading. Everywhere in the world, peasants have a 
sense of property. Khrushchev did not. As previously 
noted, he matured politically in a period when Soviet 
communists were bent on eradicating private property, 
and he developed an eminently destructive nature. 
Khrushchev smashed Stalin’s statues, shattered the Soviet 
Union’s image as a workers’ paradise, demolished 
international communist unity, destroyed the reputation of 
Pius XII, revived anti-Semitism and generated today’s 
international terrorism, all without constructing anything 
new to fill the vacuum he created. 

Khrushchev also overturned Stalin’s policy of 
nonproliferation of his nuclear weapons. I never met 
Stalin, but I heard plenty of stories about him from 
Khrushchev and Igor Kurchatov, an undercover 
intelligence officer who headed the Soviet equivalent of 
the Manhattan Project. According to them, Stalin was a 
kind of Geppetto, the Italian carpenter who carved a piece 
of wood that could laugh and cry like a child. Stalin’s 

Pinocchio was his first nuclear bomb. He baptized it 
“Iosif- 1.” On September 29, 1949, when Beriya called 
him from the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan to say 
that “Iosif- 1” had produced the same devastating 
mushroom cloud as the American “Fat Man,” Stalin was 
sitting on top of the world. 

“That day, Stalin swore to keep nuclear power to 
himself,” I heard Frederic Joliot-Curie say in August 
1955, when I was a member of the Romanian delegation 
at the United Nations Geneva Conference on the Peaceful 
Use of Atomic Energy. The French nuclear physicist and 
prominent communist claimed he had been with Stalin in 
his office when Beriya called him from the Semipalatinsk 
test site. 

Everything changed after Stalin died. After killing off 
the leaders of the Soviet Union’s political police and his 
potential rivals, Khrushchev needed a positive boost, so 
he decided to repair Stalin’s smoldering rift with China 
with a big bang. At the beginning of 1955, he approved 
Mao’s request to help his country produce nuclear 
weapons. That, together with Khrushchev’s political 
necrophagy, opened a Pandora’s box and unleashed an 
international nightmare. 

In April 1955, Khrushchev set up a joint venture 
aimed at helping China produce nuclear weapons. The 
KGB, which had — and still has, in its current incarnation 
— custody of all the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons. 

coordinated the operation. KGB-sponsored experts began 
building the essentials of China’s new military nuclear 
industry, which was expressly designed to target 
“American Zionism.” 

Five years later, however, the relations between 
Khrushchev and Mao Zedong started to sour. The Chinese 
leader grew increasingly unhappy with Khrushchev’s de- 
Stalinization and took at face value his proclaimed policy 
of peaceful coexistence with the West. He branded 
Khrushchev “soft on imperialism” and accused him of 
abandoning communist principles. 

Mao’s prime minister, Zhou Enlai, made several visits 
to Romania, where I repeatedly heard him say that Mao 
had gotten tired of Khrushchev and had started openly 
displaying his discontent — in a Chinese way. Zhou, 
speaking fluent French,^ described for his Romanian hosts 
how Mao “smoked like a locomotive” during his meetings 
with Khrushchev, even though he knew of the Soviet 
leader’s aversion to cigarettes. Even worse, during a 1958 
meeting in Beijing, Mao, who was an Olympic-class 
swimmer, took his guest over to his Olympic swimming 
pool, even though he knew Khrushchev could not swim. 

It was hilarious, Zhou said, to see Khrushchev bobbing 
around in an inner tube while the Chairman swam rings 
around him, like a fish. 

I did not know if all Zhou Enlai ’s stories were true — 
communist leaders were famous for their lies. Neither do 

we know any better now, since the secret archives of the 
Soviet Union and Red China are both still sealed. But 
when Khrushchev attended the Third Congress of the 
Romanian Workers Party in Bucharest in June 1960, he 
publicly attacked Mao. In return, he received a blistering 
response from the chief of the Chinese delegation. I 
observed the confrontation between the Ukrainian 
flowered shirt and the Chinese high-buttoned uniform, 
and I heard the Romanian leader, Gheorghe Gheorghiu- 
Dej, say that the incident might assume catastrophic 
dimensions in the volatile mind of “the peasant” — 
meaning Khrushchev. 

A few weeks after the Third Congress, the Soviet bloc 
was indeed treated to a sample of Khrushchev’s political 
necrophagy and his destructive tendency to tinker with 
every decision. Khrushchev suddenly withdrew all Soviet 
advisers from China and terminated all important joint 
projects. According to the Chinese, Moscow pulled out 
1,390 experts, tore up 343 contracts, and scrapped 257 
cooperative projects in just a few weeks. ^ The joint 
nuclear weapon project was among them, but by then the 
Chinese had learned enough to continue it on their own. 
Data provided by various US intelligence agencies attest 
that by the mid-1980s, China was producing at least 400 
kilograms of plutonium-239 per year. The exact strength 
of the Chinese strategic force is still relatively unknown— 
at least outside the CIA — but in 1996 the number of 
warheads was estimated at 2,500, with I40-I50 more 

being produced each year 7 

Khrushchev did not survive his own efforts at nuclear 
proliferation. Nevertheless, he did light the fuse that 
ignited the production of Stalin’s “Iosif- 1” in North Korea 
and generated Ahmadinejad’s nuclear Iran. 



During the twenty years Aleksandr Sakharovsky was 
my de facto boss, the Soviet general, who was a Russian 
to the marrow of his bones, repeatedly said, “Every 
society reflects its own past.” Sakharovsky believed that 
someday “our socialist camp” might wear an entirely 
different face. Marxism might be turned upside down, and 
even the Communist Party itself might become history, 
but that would not matter. Both Marxism and the party 
were foreign organisms that had been introduced into the 
Russian body, and sooner or later they would have to be 
rejected in any case. One thing, though, was certain to 
remain unchanged for as long as the Russian motherland 
was still in existence: “our gosbezopasnosf (the state 
security service). 

Sakharovsky used to point out that “our 
gosbezopasnosf had kept Russia alive for the past five 
hundred years; “our gosbezopasnosf would guide her 
helm for the next five hundred years, would win the war 
with “our main enemy, American Zionism,” and would 
eventually make Russia the leader of the world. 

So far, Sakharovsky has proved to be a dependable 
prophet. His successor at the PGU, Vladimir Kryuchkov 
— who later became chairman of the whole KGB and 
authored the August 1991 KGB coup that briefly deposed 
Gorbachev — clearly shared the same fanatical belief in 
Russia’s gosbezopasnost. Kryuchkov’s successor, 
Yevgeny Primakov, who had been an undercover KGB 
officer under Sakharovsky, rose to become Russia’s prime 
minister. Most notably, Vladimir Putin was the very chief 
of the entire gosbezopasnost before being appointed (not 
elected!) Russia’s president. 

On September 1 1, 2002, large numbers of ranking 
gosbezopasnost officers gathered at the Lubyanka. They 
had not congregated to sympathize with the United States 
on the first anniversary of its national tragedy as a victim 
of terrorism, but to celebrate the 125th birthday of Feliks 
Dzerzhinsky — the man who had created the Soviet 
political police, one of the most anti-Christian and anti- 
Semitic institutions in history. A few days later, 

Moscow’s mayor reversed his previous opposition and 
said he wanted to restore Dzerzhinsky’s bronze statue to 

its former place of honor on Lubyanka Square.^ The next 
year, the slogan “Russia for the Russians” started making 
noise in Russia, and a nationwide poll showed that 42 
percent of the population believed that Jews ought to be 
barred from power.^ 

The Cold War is indeed over, but unlike other wars, 
that one did not end with the defeated enemy throwing 
down its weapons. The barbarous KGB, which in the 
course of its existence slaughtered at least 20 million 
people at home and another 70 million throughout the 
communist world, not only survived, but it also 
transformed today’s Russia into the first intelligence 
dictatorship in history. 

Now Putin and his ex-KGB cronies own Russia. 
According to the respected British Guardian, Putin has 
secretly accumulated more than $40 billion, becoming 
Russia’s — and Europe’s — richest man. He is said to own 
at least: 37 percent of the stock (worth $18 billion) of 
Surgutneftegs, Russia’s third-largest oil producer; 4.5 
percent of the stock (worth $13 billion) of Gazprom, the 
largest extractor of natural gas in the world; and 75 
percent (worth $10 billion) of Gunvor, a mysterious oil 
trader based in Geneva.^ Putin’s puppet, Dmitry 
Medvedev — who was the Russian president until Putin 
(who had faced term limits) won it back in 2012 — was 
chairman of Gazprom, which accounts for 93 percent of 
Russian natural gas production and controls 1 6% of the 

world’s reserves. Putin’s first deputy prime minister, Igor 
Sechin, is chairman of Rosneft, the biggest oil company 
in the world.^ 

Oil and gas account not only for Putin’s exorbitant 
wealth, but for 50 percent of the Russian budget and 65 
percent of its exports as well. When the price of oil went 
over $122 a barrel on May 6, 2008, analysts pointed to 
attacks on pipelines in Nigeria and turmoil in Iraq. Russia, 
however, made a fortune. Other disruptions of foreign oil 
supplies may give Russia — and Putin — other fortunes. 
Putin’s Kremlin seems to be well aware of that 

On July 12, 2006, militants of Hezbollah (“Party of 
God”), a deeply anti-Semitic Muslim fundamentalist 
group based in Lebanon but armed by Putin’s Russia, 
launched a powerful rocket attack against Israel. That 
attack was followed by a thirty-four-day Israeli offensive 
against the attacker. Most of the Hezbollah weapons cases 
captured by the Israeli military forces during that 
offensive were marked: “Customer: Ministry of Defense 
of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”^ 

In October 2010, the same Russian- supported 
Hezbollah conducted a drill simulating the takeover of 
Israel. The European Union-sponsored Gulf Research 
Centre, which provides journalists an inside view of the 
Gulf Center Region, found out that Hezbollah’s military 
forces were armed with a large quantity of the “Soviet- 

made Katyusha- 122 rocket, which carries a 33 -lb 
warhead.” Hezbollah was also armed with Russian- 
designed and Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets which can reach 
the Israeli port of Haifa, and with the Russian-designed 
Zelzal-1 rockets, which can reach Tel Aviv. Hezbollah 
also possessed the infamous Russian Scud missiles, as 
well as Russian antitank missiles AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 
Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel, AT-13 Saxhom-2, and AT-14 
Spriggan Komet.^ 

With the passage of time, evidence has begun to reveal 
that Putin’s Kremlin was involved in igniting, and then 
stealing, the 2011 Islamic revolutions. In Egypt, the most 
pro-American Islamic country, antigovernment 
demonstrations started on January 25, 2011, when people 
took to the streets to protest poverty, unemployment, and 
government corruption. Over the next few days, Cairo’s 
Tahrir Square filled with a sea of Hezbollah’s green flags 
mixed with red hammer-and-sickle banners. Some of the 
young people there who were allegedly demanding 
democracy could be seen burning the flag of the very 
country that symbolizes democracy for most of the world 
— the United States. 

According to news media reports, on January 30, 

201 1, “a joint Hezbollah-Hamas unit used the rebellion’s 
havoc in Egypt to storm the Wadi el-Natroun prison north 
of Cairo, and break out 22 members of Hezbollah’s spy- 
cum-terror network led by Sami Shehab, who had been 

convicted for plotting terrorist attacks in Cairo, the Suez 
Canal and Suez cities, and on Israeli vacationers in Sinai 
in 2007-20087 The plan was to release these terrorists 
and as many Muslim Brotherhood inmates as possible, in 
order to “organize” and “boost” the street protests 7 
The leader of the Russian-armed Hezbollah, Sayyed 
Hassan Nasrallah, admitted to sending Sami Shehab to 
Egypt as head of a twenty-two-man force charged with 
carrying out terrorist operations aimed at destabilizing the 
country’s pro-American government.^ In a speech 
delivered to the rebels immediately after Shehab was 
freed from prison, Nasrallah said: 

I want to apologize to the youth of Tunisia and Egypt 
because we were late in announcing this message of 
support, which was not delayed due to hesitation or 
confusion .... If we addressed you before, it would have 
been said that Hezbollah cells were behind your 
mobilization — or Hamas or Iranian Revolutionary Guard 


On February 20, 2011, the Meir Amit Intelligence and 
Terrorism Information Center released a report, published 
by the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Tawm, stating that the 
real name of the just-freed Hezbollah terrorist leader Sami 
Shehab was Muhammad Yussuf Ahmed Mansour, that he 
was a trained operative in Unit 1 800 of the Russian-armed 
Hezbollah, and that he had entered Egypt on a forged 
passport showing him to be an Egyptian. 

To an informed eye, the secret conversion of the 
Hezbollah operative Muhammad Mansour into the 
Egyptian Sami Shehab looks just like the KGB creation of 
the PLO chairman Yasser Arafat — but in reverse. The 
KGB, when I was still connected with it, went to great 
lengths to transform an Egyptian-bom Marxist, 
Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat 
al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar, into a 
Palestinian-born Yasser Arafat. It took the KGB — and my 
DIE — many years to endow Arafat with a credible 
Palestinian birth certificate and other identity documents, 
to build him a new past, and to train him at the KGB 
Balashikha special-operations training school east of 
Moscow. But as Andropov said, it was worth every 
minute. In 1994, the KGB-bom-and- trained Arafat was 
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet in 2002 alone, there 
were a recorded 13,494 incidents of terrorism against 
Israelis, committed by Arafat’s PLO. More than six 
hundred civilians had lost their lives. Six months later, 
the number of Israeli civilians killed by Arafat’s 
“martyrs” passed seven hundred. 

During the old Cold War, the KGB was a state within a 
state. Now the KGB, rechristened FSB, is the state. In 
2003, more than six thousand former officers of the KGB 
— an organization that had in the past implicated and shot 

millions after framing them as Zionist spies — were 
running Russia’s federal and local governments, and 
nearly half of all top governmental positions were held by 
former officers of the KGB. The Soviet Union had one 
KGB officer for every 428 citizens. In 2004, Putin’s 
Russia had one FSB officer for every 297 citizens. 

Symbolic of this new era in Russia’s history is the 
barbaric assassination of KGB defector Alexander 
Litvinenko in London in 2006, after he was framed as an 
“enemy of Russia” for exposing — in his book Blowing Up 
Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror — 
domestic crimes committed by the Putin administration. 
British intelligence documented that the crime was 
committed by Moscow, that it was “a ‘state-sponsored’ 
assassination orchestrated by Russian security services,” 
and that it was perpetuated with Russian government- 
produced polonium-210.^^ The suspected killer, Russian 
citizen Andrey Lugovoy, was captured on cameras at 
Heathrow as he flew into Britain, carrying on him the 
murder weapon, polonium-210.^^ On May 22, 2007, the 
Crown Prosecution Service called for the extradition of 
Lugovoy to the UK on charges of murder. On July 5, 
2007, Russia declined to extradite Lugovoi.^^ 

Also during 2007, the Russian KGB/FSB assassinated 
Ivan Safronov, a Russian military expert for the magazine 
Kommersant (and framed his death as a suicide) to 
prevent him from publishing an explosive article about 

the Kremlin’s secret sale of SU-30 fighters to anti- 
American Syria. Safronov was the twenty- first journalist 
critical of the Kremlin to be killed since the progeny of 
Andropov’s political police took over the Kremlin on 
December 31, 1999.^^ Well over 120 more Russian 
journalists have been killed since.^^ 

Moreover, the little window into the KGB archives 
that had been cracked opened to Russian researchers by 
former president Boris Yeltsin was quietly closed. The 
fate of the tens of millions framed and killed by the KGB 
is still securely locked up behind the Lubyanka’s walls. 
The KGB involvement in the war against religion — all 
religions — similarly continues to be shielded by a veil of 

On December 5, 2008, Aleksi II, the fifteenth Patriarch of 
Moscow and All Russia and the primate of the Russian 
Orthodox Church, died. He had worked for the KGB 
under the codename “Drozdov” and was awarded the 
KGB Certificate of Honor, as was revealed in a KGB 
archive accidentally left behind in Estonia when the 
Russians pulled out.^^ For the first time in its history, 
Russia had the opportunity to conduct the democratic 
election of a new patriarch, but that was not to be. 

On January 27, 2009, the seven hundred Synod 
delegates assembled in Moscow were presented with a 

slate listing three candidates: Metropolitan Kirill of 
Smolensk (a secret member of the KGB codenamed 
“Mikhaylov”); Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk (who 
worked for the KGB under the code name “Ostrovsky”); 
and Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga (who had the KGB 
codename “Topaz”). 

When the bells at Christ the Savior Cathedral tolled to 
announce that a new patriarch had been elected, 
Kirill/“Mikhaylov” proved to be the winner. Regardless 
of whether he was the best leader for his church, he 
certainly was in a better position to influence the religious 
world abroad than were the other candidates. In 1971, the 
KGB had sent Kirill to Geneva as a representative of the 
Russian Orthodox Church to that Soviet propaganda 
machine the World Council of Churches. In 1975, the 
KGB infiltrated him into the Central Committee of the 
WCC, which had become a Kremlin pawn. In 1989 the 
KGB appointed him chairman of the Russian 
patriarchate’s foreign relations as well. He still held those 
positions when he was elected patriarch. 

In his acceptance speech as the new patriarch, 
“Mikhaylov” announced that he planned to take a trip to 
the Vatican in the near future. He also spoke about his 
intention to establish religious television channels in 
Russia that would broadcast to audiences abroad. 

In Russia, the more things change, the more they seem 
to stay the same. The science of disinformation has 

proven to be such a wonder weapon that the Russians 
remain addicted to it. There is no end in sight to the 
Kremlin’s manipulation of religions for the ultimate goal 
of consolidating its own power by widening the gap 
between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 



After vladimir putin and his former KGB colleagues 
took over the Kremlin, the war against Zionist America 
exploded in Western Europe with the same fiiry as at the 
peak of the Cold War. Soon after we set foot in the new 
millennium, millions of Europeans began taking to the 
streets, not to celebrate the freedoms they enjoy because 
America liberated them from under the Nazi and Soviet 
boots, but to condemn the United States for its new war 
on terrorism. Once again the European left mobilized 
against its archenemy, Zionist America, persuading others 
around the world to join in gatherings conducted with all 
the passion of religious revival meetings. In 2001, when 

Osama bin Laden’s terrorists declared war on the United 
States with their suicidal airplane attacks, those graying 
European Marxists who had taken to the streets to 
demonstrate against Americans when they were young 
Sorbonne students now took up their pens to condemn 
Americans once more. 

The Russian backers supplying ideological instigation 
for this new anti-American offensive have become even 
more disturbing than the Kalashnikovs the al-Qaeda 
terrorists were pointing at us. French philosopher Jacques 
Derrida, who claimed he had broken with Marxism but 
still choked up with emotion whenever he heard “The 
Internationale,”^ now began preaching that the Islamic 
war against the United States was justified because the 
United States was culturally alienated. Derrida therefore 
called for a “new Internationale” to unite all the 
environmentalists, feminists, gays, aboriginals, and other 
“dispossessed and marginalized” people who were 
combatting American-led globalization.^ 

Antonio Negri, a professor at the University of Padua 
who once was the brains behind the Italian Red Brigades 
— one of the KGB -financed leftist terrorist groups of the 
1970s — and who served time in jail for his involvement in 
kidnapping and killing former Italian prime minister Aldo 
Moro, has now coauthored a virulently anti-American 
book entitled Empire. In it, Negri justifies Islamist 
terrorism as being a spearhead of “postmodern 

revolution” against American globalization — the new 
“empire” — which he claims is breaking up nation-states 
and creating huge unemployment.^ The New York Times 
(which omitted any mention of Negri’s involvement in 
terrorism) went so far as to call his modern-day 
Communist Manifesto “the hot, smart book of the 

On December 14, 2002, the (Soviet-style) Secretariat 
of the (Soviet-created) World Peace Council, still headed 
by (KGB asset) Romesh Chandra, convened a meeting of 
its (Soviet-style) Executive Committee, which strongly 
“condemned the extremely dangerous escalation of US 
aggressiveness on the global level.” An international 
appeal issued by the “WPC Secretariat” on the same day 
stated that “it is significant and encouraging to see large, 
unprecedented mobilizations against war and the 
problems of globalization that have been taking place in 
the recent period. Many and multiform movements that 
contest today’s situation have been forming and growing. 
Demonstrations have been held in USA, Great Britain, 
Florence, Prague, and in many other European capitals as 
well as in other countries.”^ 

The WPC document acknowledged that “the World 
Peace Council has participated in or co-organized these 
mobilizations,” and it called on “peace movements to 
strengthen their struggle, take initiatives to mobilize the 
people and form links with the growing popular 

movement, at the same time boosting their autonomous 
action as WPC members and helping to form a broad and 
militant peace movement against the new world order. 

The WPC official communique published at the 
conclusion of that meeting stated, in typical old Soviet- 
style: “The criminal Bush administration is intensifying 
readiness for the unilateral attack on Iraq, and this 
unilateralism of hegemony is becoming the biggest threat 
to world peace.” The communique also called “upon the 
peoples and movements of the world aspiring to peace 
and justice to unite their voices and actions against the US 
war on Iraq.”^ 

In early 2003, the same KGB-appointed Chandra, now 
honorary chairman of the World Peace Council, declared 
April 12 “international mobilization day” and called upon 
people throughout the world to organize demonstrations 
demanding that all governments “stop all support to the 
US and British murderers” and insisting that the UN 
General Assembly convene in order to stop the war in 
Iraq. WPC branches in at least fifty-seven countries joined 
in, calling for anti-American demonstrations. Over the 
April 12-13 weekend, more peace demonstrations were 
staged simultaneously around the world, with the largest 
in Athens and Moscow. 

The Workers World Party (WWP) joined the fray. 

That was another KGB front known to me from when I 
served at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence 

community. The WWP, which is headquartered in the 
United States, called for anti-American demonstrations on 
April 12, 2003 in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco, and 
Los Angeles, to condemn the “colonial occupation of 
Iraq” and to demand “regime change in Washington.”^ 

The WWP was created by the KGB community in 
1957, with the initial task of helping the Kremlin create a 
favorable impression of the 1956 Soviet invasion of 
Hungary among the trade unions and the “colored” 
population of the United States. It was run by a Soviet- 
style secretariat whose members were secretly 
indoctrinated and trained by the KGB, which also 
financed its day-to-day operation. In 1959, the WWP got 
its own newspaper. Workers World, which was edited by 
the KGB’s disinformation department and was, for a 
while, printed in Romania together with the Cominform 
magazine {For Lasting Peace, for Popular Democracy). 
To camouflage Moscow’s hand and to give the paper a 
broader appeal, the early issues showed both Lenin and 
Trotsky holding up a banner saying, “Colored and White 
Unite and Fight for a WORKERS WORLD.” 

Currently, the WWP has a national office in New 
York (55 W. Seventeenth Street) and eighteen regional 
headquarters across the United States, the addresses of 
which are posted on the Internet. Now the WWP 
represents itself as a “national Marxist-Leninist party 
promoting socialism, supporting working class struggles 

and lesbian/gay/bi/trans liberation, organizing protests, 
and denouncing racism and sexism.” Two of its leaders, 
Larry Holmes and Monica G. Moorehead, repeatedly ran 
for president of the United States on the WWP ticket. 

Both portrayed the United States as a country run by 
warmongering governments, and both charged that 
America was full of political prisoners.^ 

The WWP newspaper Workers World is also still 
around and maintains its Cold War rhetoric. Its website 
states: “We’re independent Marxists” whose “goal is 
solidarity of all the workers and oppressed against this 
criminal imperialist system.” 

Over the years, the WWP created several front 
organizations along Soviet lines, such as the Youth 
Against War and Fascism, the United Labor Action, and 
the American Servicemen’s Union. Most recently the 
WWP spawned a front called ANSWER, standing for Act 
Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is a United 
States-based umbrella group consisting of many Marxist 
antiwar and civil rights organizations. Formed in the wake 
of the September 11, 2001, attacks, ANSWER has since 
helped organize many of the largest antiwar 
demonstrations in the United States, including 
demonstrations of hundreds of thousands against the Iraq 
war. It is supported by numerous foreign Marxist bodies 
(the Lebanese Communist party, the New Communist 
Party of the Netherlands, the Partido Comunista de la 

Argentina) and by other anti-American organizations (the 
Italian Tribunal on NATO Crimes, the Green Party USA, 
the Canadian-Cuban Friendship). 

ANSWER was the main organizer of the large anti- 
American demonstrations that took place in the United 
States on April 12-13, 2003. Its website contained 
numerous ready-to-use anti-American flyers (among them 
“Surround the White House” and “Vote to Impeach 
Bush”) that could be downloaded, printed, and posted. 
ANSWER also provided dozens of buses to transport the 
“spontaneous” demonstrators from more than one 
hundred cities around the United States to Washington, 
San Francisco, and Los Angeles, where the main anti- 
American demonstrations were scheduled. Its website 
contained the names, phone numbers, and e-mail 
addresses of the contacts in charge of handling each bus, 
as well as detailed instructions for reaching those buses. 
For instance: “Buses from Detroit and Ann Arbor depart 9 
P.M. Friday, April 11; return by 6 A.M. Sunday, April 13. 
Ann Arbor bus leaves from Michigan Union (State St. and 
S. University). Be there at 8:30. Detroit bus leaves from 
southeast comer parking lot at Temple St. and Third 
Street. Enter parking lot from south side of Temple, just 
east of Third. Security, free parking all weekend from 
Detroit departure point.” 

It is noteworthy that the end of the Iraq Summit 
organized by President Putin in St. Petersburg and 

attended by the German chancellor and by the French 
president coincided with the April 12, 2003, anti- 
American demonstrations organized by the World Peace 
Council and its American offshoot, the Workers World 
Party. It is also noteworthy that in 2005, after he stepped 
down as chancellor, Gerhard Schroder accepted a high 
position at the Russian Gazprom company. In an 
editorial titled “Gerhard Schroeder’s Sellout,” the 
Washington Post also expressed sharp criticism, reflecting 
widening international ramifications of Schroder’s new 
post.^^ Democrat Tom Lantos, chairman of the United 
States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, likened 
Schroder to a “political prostitute.” 

American politicians and media have offered various 
explanations for the current wave of European America- 
bashing: Europe feels irrelevant because Washington did 
not ask its permission to start the war against terrorism; 
for the past twenty years Europe poured all its wealth into 
welfare and social programs, and now it is ashamed to 
admit that its military is not up to snuff; Europe has 
always favored appeasement; the European Community is 
too self-absorbed in its own internal integration and does 
not want to be distracted by fighting terrorism — just as it 
did not want to be involved in its own Balkan conflict; the 
United States failed to solve world poverty and that made 
the Arab and Islamic countries mad. 

Although there is some truth in all those explanations. 

there is another more cogent reason that is universally 
ignored: the survival of the KGB’s Cold War 
dezinformatsiya machinery, which spent more than forty 
years running anti-American operations for the purpose of 
discrediting the Kremlin’s “main enemy.” 

In the 1970s, during my last meeting with Andropov, 
the KGB chairman told me that “now all we have to do is 
keep this machinery alive.” Andropov was a shrewd judge 
of human nature. He understood that in the end, the 
Soviets’ original involvement would be forgotten, and 
then the dezinformatsiya machinery would take on a life 
of its own. That was just the way human nature worked. 

In Russia, the more things change, the more they seem 
to stay the same. Of course the French, those clever 
diplomats, have the perfect saying for this: Plus ga 
change, plus c ’est la mime chose. And so it goes. 



In march 2008, the whole world watched in disbelief as 
the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the spiritual adviser of a 
prominent US senator running for the White House as the 
Democratic Party’s candidate, screamed at the television 
screen, “God damn America!” He accused the United 
States of America, the country that had defeated Nazism 
and its Holocaust, of deliberately spreading the AIDS 
virus to kill black people. He also insinuated that 
America, the only country on earth that had declared war 
on terrorism, had actually brought about the 9/11 attacks 
with its own “terrorism.” 

I expected the leaders of the Democratic Party to 
strongly censure Reverend Wright’s poisonous anti- 
Americanism for the disinformation that it was. Instead, 

the Democrats’ damage-control machine simply brushed 
away Wright’s statement, calling it “a staple of black 

But “God damn America” was not bom in black 
churches. I have many black friends and they all love and 
revere America. Nor is the phrase — and sentiment — of 
Islamic, French, German, or Mexican origin. The millions 
around the world waiting in line to be admitted into the 
United States do not hate America. They admire it — that’s 
why they want to live here. 

“God damn America” is a slogan launched many years 
ago by a religious movement dubbed “liberation 
theology,” whose creation by the KGB dezinformatsiya 
machinery was described in a previous chapter. 

I have good reason to believe that the Democratic 
Party’s tolerance of Rev. Wright’s anti-American 
profanity is the result of that party’s growing tendency to 
swallow dezinformatsiya operations and to give them 
American cover. Back when I was granted political 
asylum, I was unable to tell the difference between the 
Republican Party and the Democratic Party. To my eyes 
of that time, both parties epitomized the embodiment of 
freedom and anticommunism. That was, until the 
memorable day of July 19, 1979, when President Jimmy 
Carter affectionately and repeatedly kissed the brutal 
Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev during their first encounter 
in Vienna. 

Tyrants despise appeasers. On April 12, 1978, 1 was in 

the car with Ceau§escu driving away from an official 

ceremony at the White House. He took a bottle of alcohol 
and splashed it all over his face, after having been 
affectionately kissed by President Carter in the Oval 

Office. “Peanut-head,” Ceau§escu whispered disgustedly. 

Five months after the infamous Carter-Brezhnev kiss, a 
KGB terrorist squad assassinated Hafizullah Amin, the 
American-educated prime minister of Afghanistan, and 
replaced him with a Soviet puppet. Then the Red Army 
invaded the country. 

President Carter’s feeble protest consisted merely of 
boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow, a compromise 
that gave rise to the Taliban regime. I am grateful to 
President Carter for signing off on my political asylum, 
but in truth, it was he who laid the groundwork for the 
expansion of today’s international terrorism. His 
presidential weakness in abandoning the pro-Western 
shah of Iran led directly to the birth of the modem 
Islamist revolution, which has since metastasized into far- 
flung terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda that have 
directly attacked America. 

Another KGB dezinformatsiya launched the political 
career of the 2004 Democratic Party nominee for the 
White House, Senator John Kerry. On April 22, 1971, the 
former Navy lieutenant testified to the Senate Committee 
on Foreign Relations that American soldiers told him that 

in Vietnam they had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, 
taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals 
and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, 
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion 
reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”^ 

Although Senator Kerry never fully revealed the 
source of those outrageous accusations, I recognized them 
as being the product of another KGB disinformation 
operation. In the 1960s and ‘70s, when I was a leader of 
the Soviet bloc intelligence community, the KGB spread 
those same vitriolic accusations, almost word for word, 
throughout American and European leftist movements. 
They were part of a KGB disinformation operation aimed 
at discouraging the United States from protecting the 
world against communist expansion. 

I do not question Senator Kerry’s patriotism. He 
surely loves this magnificent country as much as I do. 
Nevertheless, I have strong reason to believe that when he 
was young, he was deluded by Moscow’s 
dezinformatsiya. During my years as an intelligence 
officer, I was many times involved in creating anti- 
Americanism out of whole cloth, and I could see how 
easy it was to make young people hate the almighty 

In July 1953, 1 was charged to help organize an 
international congress of the FMeration Mondiale de la 
Jeunesse Democratique (World Federation of Democratic 

Youth) held in Bucharest. The task of this youth congress 
was to denigrate American efforts to stop North Korea’s 
expansion of communism. My boss of that time, General 
Penteleymon Bondarenko — Romani anized as Gheorghe 
Pintilie — ^put the final touches on my preparation. As 
previously mentioned, he was a Soviet citizen of vague 
Romanian ancestry who had become the first chief of the 
Romanian Securitate, where he was universally known as 
Pantyusha, his Russian nickname. He spoke hardly any 
Romanian, and what little he did was seasoned with a 
strong Russian accent and came out as an outdated 
working-class argot larded with vulgarities. 

Pantyusha explained to me that “those Peking 
students easily got excited about Peking injustices and 
had a Peking short fuse when it came to violent protests.” 
That made them “putty in our hands, and we could mold 
them into any Peking thing we wanted.” My main task 
was to mold them into anti-American protesters. 

As an intelligence officer, I was still green, but I 
eventually had to agree that Pantyusha knew his students. 
The young people attending the congress were put up at 
student hostels set aside for them in Bucharest, and I 
bunked with them. The walls of the hostels were plastered 
with articles and photographs supposedly documenting 
the abominable crimes committed by America’s Genghis 
Khan-style military, generating violent anti-American 
reactions from the young visitors. Free alcohol was 
available in the hostels, which helped fuel the rioting. 

At night, most of the young people, led on by the 
Swedish delegates, wandered buck naked from room to 
room, looking for sexual adventures. In short, the 
congress was one colossal, uninhibited party, and the only 
price of admission was the special fim of yelling out anti- 
American epithets. 

On July 27 of that year, while the youth congress was 
running full steam ahead, Romanian radio announced that 
an armistice in the Korean War had been reached that day. 
“American imperialism has been soundly defeated,” the 
radio blared. Wild celebrations broke out. The debauchery 
bom in the youth hostels spread to the streets, building up 
into night-and-day, anti-American hysteria. I was part of 
it. The next day, the Romanian government organized a 
“popular” meeting in Bucharest to celebrate the occasion. 
It was the first American defeat in the international arena 
and was royally feted. I remember joining in, shouting 
“Yankees go home!” 

In retrospect, I recall that no mention was made during 
the youth congress of the fact that the war had actually 
been started when North Korean troops in Russian T-34 
tanks crossed the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950, in an 
attempt to export the communist revolution. As usual, the 
actual history was entirely changed. No one wanted to 
hear that communist China had decided to enter the war 
the following October, although that event had turned the 
tide of the war. Instead, the World Federation of 

Democratic Youth congress spent the whole time loudly 
condemning America’s war “atrocities,” as displayed in 
the fabricated horror scenes posted all over the meeting 
hall and the youth hostels. 

Looking back on that time in my life, I realize how 
much easier it is to change your political views at twenty- 
five than at fifty. Five decades later, as I watched the 
televised spectacle of thousands of young people 
demonstrating in Paris and Berlin against “America’s 
criminal war” in Iraq, I could picture myself among them. 
They belonged to a new generation, but there they were 
condemning the same kind of carefully fabricated 
“American atrocities” that I had back in 1953, and they 
were just as many thousands of miles away from the real 
America as I had been. 

Today, it is considered bad manners to point to any Soviet 
source of American anti-Americanism. But throughout 
their history, Americans had never before been anti- 
American. They voluntarily came to the United States. 
They were always a proud and independent people who 
loved their country and who won every military conflict 
up until its wars against communist expansion — the 
Korean and the Vietnam Wars. 

From 1776 to 1782, the Americans faced off against 
Great Britain, the most powerful empire in the world at 

that time — and won. In the War of 1812, the United States 
again forced the British to retreat back across the Atlantic. 
After the United States annexed Texas, whose 
independence the Mexicans refused to accept, in 1 846 
Mexico attacked the US and was soundly defeated. In 
1898, the United States went to war to support Cuba’s 
desire for independence from Spain, decimating the 
Spanish fleet and forcing Spain to sue for peace. During 
World War I, in which more than 40 million Europeans 
were killed, the United States quickly put together an 
army of 4 million and became instrumental in defeating 
the German aggressor. 

During World War II, almost half a million Americans 
died to defeat Nazism and the Holocaust, and their 
country remained sturdily united around its commander in 
chief. The United States held national elections during 
that war, but no one running for office even thought to 
harm American unity in a quest for personal victory. 
Republican opponent Thomas Dewey declined to criticize 
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s foreign policy 
during a time of war.^ When the war ended, a united 
America rolled up its sleeves and helped rebuild her 
vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Hitler’s 
Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Hirohito’s Japan into 
prosperous democracies, but that effort made the United 
States the uncontested leader of the world. 

Then, suddenly, a number of Americans began turning 

against their country’s own wars. By 1968, the anti- 
Vietnam War protesters in the United States numbered 
almost 7 million. They came to regard their own 
government, not communism, as the enemy. ^ It reached 
the point that today the Washington elite believe bashing 
the US commander in chief in time of war is as American 
as apple pie. 

How did America’s venerable patriotism arrive at this 

“Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy 
forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, 
internationalist, strong and successful,” said Sen. Joseph 
Lieberman on May 27, 2008, explaining the problem in a 
nutshell. “Now, the Democratic Party sees America as the 
main danger to the world’s peace. The Soviets and their 
allies were our enemies, not because they were inspired 
by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our 
way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global 
conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemies because 
we had provoked them, and because we failed to sit down 
and accord them the respect they deserved. In other 
words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.”^ 

Sen. Lieberman was right on the money, but he knew 
only one side of the coin. Here is the other. 

The general perception in the United States is that 
America’s antiwar movement has been a homegrown 
product. In reality, it is the result of a still very secret 

dezinformatsiya operation ignited by the KGB during the 
Vietnam War for the dual purpose of counteracting 
American efforts to protect the world against communist 
expansion, and of creating doubt around the world about 
American power, judgment and credibility. Unfortunately, 
it has fulfilled both aims. 

KGB chief Yuri Andropov, a former ambassador and 
by far the best educated chairman the KGB ever had, 
baptized this dezinformatsiya operation with the 
codename “Ares,” after the Greek god of war. Ares was 
usually accompanied in battle by his sister Eris (goddess 
of discord) and by his two sons, Deimos (fear) and 
Phobos (terror). 

Andropov was convinced that the war in Vietnam 
provided a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make Europe fear 
America’s military terror and instill discord between the 
Old Continent and its own leader at that time, the United 
States. Therefore, Andropov made Operation Ares a 
foremost priority from almost the first days of the 
Vietnam War. 

In order to conceal its hand, the KGB created the so- 
called Stockholm Conference on Vietnam and staffed it 
with undercover KGB officers. This new dezinformatsiya 
front organization received an average of $15 million 
yearly from the International Department of the Soviet 
Communist Party — which in addition provided $50 
million annually to Chandra’s World Peace Council. The 

money — for both organizations — was delivered by the 
KGB in the form of laundered cash dollars in order to 
hide its origin. Nevertheless, Moscow’s fingerprints were 
all over the new organization. 

Copying the World Peace Council, Stockholm’s 
smaller dezinformatsiya sister established a Soviet-style 
secretariat to manage its general activities, created Soviet- 
style working committees to conduct its day-to-day 
operations, generated Soviet-style bureaucratic 
paperwork, used Soviet-style vocabulary, and launched 
Soviet-style slogans. Moreover, it resorted to the same 
modus operandi as the World Peace Council. The DIE’s 
operational program for 1968, for instance, included the 
task of obtaining one hundred thousand signatures 
worldwide on the “stop-the- Vietnam- War” appeal just 
launched by the Stockholm Conference. For the same 
year, the DIE was also tasked to set up emigre meetings in 
every major Western country, condemning America’s 
“criminal aggression” in Vietnam. 

The so-called Stockholm Conference held annual 
international meetings through 1972. During the five 
years of its existence, it spread around the world countless 
vitriolic dezinformatsiya articles and photographs 
supposedly depicting the debaucheries committed by the 
Genghis Khan-style American military against 
Vietnamese civilians. All these materials were produced 
by the KGB’s disinformation department and contained 
basically fabricated descriptions of American atrocities 

committed against civilians in Vietnam, as well as 
counterfeited pictures supporting the allegations. “Even 
Attila the Hun looks like an angel when compared to 
these Amis,” a West German businessman reprovingly 
told me after reading one such report in German (“Amis” 
was the German nickname for American GIs). These 
forgeries made quite an impression, however, within the 
Italian, Greek and Spanish communist parties. 

In 1972, 1 had a long discussion with Andropov about 
Operation Ares. “It turned America against her own 
government,” Andropov started off in his soft voice. It 
damaged America’s foreign policy consensus, poisoned 
her domestic debate, and built a credibility gap between 
America and European public opinion that was wide and 
deep. It also transformed the world’s leftists into deadly 
enemies of American “imperialism.” Now all we had to 
do was to continue planting the seeds of “Ares” and water 
them day after day after day. Eventually, American 
leftists would seize upon our Ares and would start 
pursuing it of their own accord. In the end, our original 
involvement would be forgotten and Ares would take on a 
life of its own. 

Sadly, Andropov seems to have been right. The US 
elections of 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated 
by leftist Democrats who immediately restricted the 
financing of the war in Vietnam, and in 1976 cut the 
funding altogether. As US forces precipitously pulled out 
of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some 2 

million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another 
million tried to escape by sea, but many died in the 

Ares has changed the United States as well. Today it is 
not only hot-headed young Americans like the young 
Navy lieutenant John Kerry, who scream out accusations 
of war crimes allegedly committed by the American 
military. The 2004 Democratic National Convention 
focused almost exclusively on the Vietnam days, giving 
new dimensions to Andropov’s old “Ares” and throwing 
more mud on our military forces and their commander in 
chief than Andropov and his satraps had ever dared to 
imagine. One after the other, the convention participants 
denigrated America’s armed forces by portraying their 
commander in chief as a “renegade,” a “liar,” a 
“deceiver,” and a “fraud” who had concocted the war for 
personal gain.^ The United States had some 140,000 
soldiers engaged in a grueling war, fighters who needed 
political support from all sides — but all they got from that 
Democratic Convention was insults and hatred. 

After the convention, one of the participants, Martin 
O’Malley, who later became governor of Maryland, even 
claimed to be more worried about the actions of the 
George W. Bush administration than about al-Qaeda.^ 

A few days after the convention ended, Teresa Heinz 
Kerry, wife of the Democratic contender for the White 
House, stated that four more years of the Bush 

administration meant four more years of hell for 
America.^ Like her husband, she also had bought into the 
Ares dezinformatsiya. 

I am also an immigrant like Teresa Kerry (born to 
Portuguese parents in Mozambique and naturalized 
American citizen twenty-five years later), and I have 
spent my thirty- four American years under six presidents 
— some better than others — ^but I have always felt I was 
living in paradise. 

Yet by 2007, most leaders of the Democratic Party 
were engaged in a frantic campaign to condemn the 
United States for its war in Iraq, and to withdraw our 
troops unconditionally. Senator Harry Reid, the 
Democratic majority leader, famously declared, “the war 
is lost.” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi 
announced, “this war has been a grotesque mistake,” 
adding that wealthy corporate interests would get a 
windfall and the middle class would get the bill. That is 
exactly what the “Ares” dezinformatsiya also preached. 

On October 9, 2008, Sen. John Kerry, who in 2009 
became chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, stated in a televised interview with 
PBS’s Jim Lehrer: 

Well, let me just say quiekly that I’ve had an extraordinary 
experienee of watehing up elose and personal that transition 

in Russia, because I was there right after the 
transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators 
... to go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square 
and see reams of files with names on them. It sort of 
brought home the transition to democracy that Russia was 

trying to make.^ 

First of all, if Senator Kerry does not know that 
Treblinka was a Nazi death camp in Poland, whereas the 
KGB headquarters was, and still is, the Lubyanka, what 
should we suppose he learned from seeing all those files 
— written in a language he could not read anyway? 

Unfortunately, Sen. Kerry and quite a few other top 
US political leaders now consider the Soviet Union and 
its KGB to be ancient history. They bought another 
Kremlin dezinformatsiya, according to which the 
nefarious Soviet legacy was uprooted in 1991 with the 
disintegration of the Soviet Union, just as the Nazi legacy 
was eradicated in 1945 with the end of World War II. 
They also believe Russia has become an ally who is as 
sincere a friend to the United States as is today’s 

Make no mistake: since the Soviet borders have been 
thrown open, Russia indeed has been transformed in 
unprecedented and positive ways. Young generations of 
intellectuals are now struggling to develop a new national 
identity. There are, however, substantial differences 
between post-Soviet Russia and post-Nazi Germany. 

After Germany surrendered in 1945, Hitler’s Third 
Reich was demolished, its war criminals put on trial, its 
Gestapo and military forces disbanded, and the Nazis 
removed from public office. In the 1950s, when I was 
acting chief of Romania’s Mission in West Germany, I 
saw how West Germany’s economy was being rebuilt 
with the help of Marshall Plan money, and how the 
country had become a multiparty democracy and a close 
friend of the United States. 

None of these things have happened in the former 
Soviet Union. No individual has been put on trial, 
although its communist regime killed, in peacetime, 94 
million people all around the world.^ Most Soviet 
institutions, under new names, have been left in place and 
continue to be run by many of the same people who 
guided the communist state. The military and the political 
police forces, instrumental during the Cold War, have also 
remained in place but with new nameplates on their doors. 

During most of the last century, the world’s foreign 
and military policies were heavily centered around the 
Soviet Union, which dispossessed a third of the globe’s 
population, deeply divided the world, and repeatedly 
brought it to the brink of nuclear war. Yet no American 
political figures talk about Russia any more, even though 
that country still has more than six thousand nuclear 

Indeed, in August 2008, the deputy chief of the 

General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, General 
Anatoly Nogovitsyn, threatened to attack Poland with a 
new generation of nuclear weapons. By hosting a US 
antimissile shield, he said, Poland “is exposing itself to a 
strike 100 percent.” Any new US assets in Europe, the 
general warned, could come under Russian nuclear 

This new generation of Russian nuclear weapons, if it 
truly exists, must have been developed in one of the 
KGB-managed nuclear cities hidden throughout Russia. 
In the late 1970s, when I was still in Romania, the KGB’s 
nuclear component alone had eighty-seven supersecret 
nuclear cities, such as the ones on Vozrozhdeniye and 
Komsomolsk islands in the Aral Sea. At that time, I 
coordinated Romania’s technological intelligence and 
knew these nuclear cities quite well. They were built and 
run by the KGB. Not a single such city was ever listed 
anywhere, not even on the Soviet Union’s most highly 
classified military maps. 

For instance, Chelyabinsk City in the Urals was on a 
map of the Soviet Union, but Chelyabinsk-40, a city of 
40,000 people also located in the Urals, was not. Nor did 
any maps show Chelyabinsk-65, Chelyabinsk-70, 
Chelyabinsk-95, and Chelyabinsk- 1 15, all in the Urals. 
Krasnoyarsk city in eastern Siberia was shown on maps, 
but there was no mention anywhere of Krasnoyarsk-25, 
Krasnoyarsk-26, and Krasnoyarsk-45. However, after a 

nuclear accident at the east Siberian city of Tomsk-7 in 
April of 1993, ten other “secret cities” located in that part 
of the country were disclosed. 

These secret cities are so enormous, they almost 
cannot be disassembled, and nothing so far indicates that 
they have been. Knowledge of them may persuade 
America in general, and its leaders in particular, to stop 
fantasizing that a Russia run by the KGB is our sincere 
friend — a Russia that, as we have seen, framed Pius XII 
as Hitler’s Pope in order to divide and conquer the world. 

In World War II, 405,399 Americans died because 
Neville Chamberlain fantasized that Hitler was a friend. 
We must not repeat such a mistake. 

“Trust, but verify,” was the famous signature phrase 
defining President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. The 
current US policy toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, 
however, is called “Reset” (erroneously translated by the 
State Department as “Peregruzka,” which means 
“overcharged”). There is just one meaning for “trust, but 
verify.” There are quite a few meanings for “reset” in 
dictionaries, but all tend to signify “restore” — except in 
Scotland, where “reset” is the legal term for knowingly 
and dishonestly receiving stolen goods. 

Russia’s intelligence dictatorship is a new political 
phenomenon, and we need a new foreign policy to deal 
with it. Otherwise, we may face a new Cold War, one that 
threatens to be not only cold, but also bloody. I do not 

know what our new policy toward Russia should be. I 
have no access to classified information and no wish to 
play the armchair general. The know-it-all talking heads 
in the American media are no wiser than I am. I do, 
however, have reason to suggest that our administration 
and Congress take a serious look at President Truman’s 
NSC 68 (1950). 

That report of the National Security Council, a down- 
to-earth, 58-page document, described the challenges 
facing the United States of that day in realistic terms. 
“The issues that face us are momentous,” NSC 68 stated, 
“involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this 
Republic but of civilization itself 

Therefore, NSC 68 focused on creating a “new world 
order” centered on American liberal-capitalist values, and 
it contained a two-pronged political strategy: superior 
military power and a “Campaign of Truth,” defined as “a 
struggle, above all else, for the minds of men.” President 
Harry Truman argued that the propaganda and 
disinformation used by the “forces of imperialistic 
communism” could be overcome only by the “plain, 
simple, unvarnished truth.” The Voice of America, 
Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberation (soon to 
become Radio Liberty) became part of Truman’s 
“Campaign of Truth.”^^ 

If you still wonder how the United States was able to 
win the Cold War without firing a shot, here is one 

explanation from Romania’s second post-Ceausescu 
president Emil Constantinescu: 

Radio Free Europe has been a lot more important than the 
armies and the most sophistieated missiles. The “missiles” 
that destroyed Communism were launehed from Radio Free 
Europe, and this was Washington’s most important 
investment during the Cold War. I don’t know whether the 
Amerieans themselves realize this now, seven years after 
the fall of Communism, but we understand it perfeetly 


In July 2007, Russia’s President Putin predicted a new 
Cold War against the West. “War has started,” he 
announced on August 8, 2008, minutes after Russian 
tanks crossed into pro-Western Georgia. 

Dezinformatsiya became secret policy once more. This 
invisible weapon is again sustained by military threats, as 
it was during the Cold War. President Putin took pains to 
announce that Russia had test-launched a missile system 
that could maneuver in mid- flight, allowing it to dodge 
defenses. The chief of the General Staff of the Armed 
Forces of the Russian Federation, General Yury 
Baluyevsky, added: “We can build weapons which will 
render any anti-missile system defenseless.” He also 
stated that Russia was ready to use nuclear missile 
systems to “defend the sovereignty of Russia and its 



In a 2008 RASMUSSEN POLL, only 53 percent of Americans 
preferred capitalism to socialism, with another 27 percent 
unsure, and 20 percent strongly opting for socialism. One 
of the most popular nightclubs in New York City’s East 
Village is the KGB Bar, jammed with Marxist writers 
who read from their literary works extolling the need to 
redistribute America’s wealth.^ Ironically, today’s 
Russian Pravda chaffed: “It must be said, that like the 
breaking of a great dam, the American descent into 
Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against 
the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me 
dear reader, I meant people.”^ 

Why is the United States of America, which built the 
most successful free-market economy in history, now 

toying with Marxism? History will certainly provide a 
definitive answer to this question. Meanwhile, I suggest 
considering the explanation provided by the French 
philosopher Jacques Derrida, who claimed he had broken 
with Marxism but confessed to still being choked with 
emotion whenever he heard “The Internationale.” 

Just before he died, Derrida reminded us that the first 
noun in Marx’s Communist Manifesto is “specter”: “A 
specter is haunting Europe, the specter of Communism.” 
According to Derrida, Marx began The Communist 
Manifesto with “specter” because a specter never dies.^ 

Derrida was on to something. 

“Of only one fact do I feel certain, and it is that no 
thinking man can imagine that the ultimate result of the 
Great War can be anything but disastrous to humanity at 
large,” stated Alfred Mosley, one of Europe’s most 
celebrated economists, in 1915.^ He was prophetic. The 
Great War brought Marx’s specter to life in the shape of 
the Soviet Union. Marx’s specter continued to come to 
life after each long war in another comer of the world. 

The Soviet Empire, which transformed Eastern Europe 
into dismal feudalism, was created soon after World War 
II ended. My native country is a case in point: Four years 
of war on Germany’s side had squeezed Romania like a 
sponge, and what little remained had been stolen by the 
vindictive “liberating” Soviet Army, which had laid waste 
to the land worse than a plague of locusts. Many young 

Romanian intellectuals who had grown up under the 
influence of the postwar patriotic fervor were willing to 
try anything, Marxism included, to rebuild their 
homeland. I was one of them. 

In 1945, the young British voters, also tired of five 
years of war and ignorant of world history, turned to 
Marx’s specter for help as well. Two months after World 
War II ended, they kicked out of office the legendary 
Winston Churchill — who was instrumental in winning 
that war — and brought in Clement Attlee, an undercover 
Marxist leader of the Labor Party. Attlee started his reign 
by nationalizing the healthcare system. His appetite for 
socialism thus whetted, Attlee went on to nationalize the 
finance, auto, and coal industries, communication 
facilities, civil aviation, electricity, the steel industry — 
just as many leaders of the Democratic Party in the United 
States have indicated they also intend to do. 

The British economy collapsed and the powerful 
British Empire passed into history, providing a stem — ^but 
evidently ignored — warning to all who later might be 
tempted to look at Marx’s Specter as savior. Even the 
most famous British brand names, like Jaguar and Rolls- 
Royce, had to be rescued from oblivion by auto 
companies in other countries. 

In 1950 the British voters repented and brought 
Churchill back to Downing Street, but it took Great 
Britain eighteen years of conservative governments to 

repair the catastrophe generated by Attlee’s government 
in a mere six years. In the process of recovery, the Labor 
Party was fortunate enough to acquire non-Marxist 
leaders, such as Tony Blair, who normalized the party 

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human 
Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, have 
recently discovered a genetic factor, the A1 Mutation, that 
supposedly affects one’s ability to learn from past 
mistakes. If true, then perhaps many people in South 
America carry the A1 mutation. They brought various 
Atlee-style Partidos dos Trabalhadores (Workers Party) 
leaders to power in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras, and 
Argentina, and moved these countries into the Marxist 
fold. Russian military ships and bombers are now back in 
Cuba — and in Venezuela — for the first time since the 
Cuban missile crisis. Brazil, the world’s tenth largest 
economy, even installed a former Marxist guerrilla 
fighter, Dilma Rousseff, as that country’s president. 

After forty-five years of Cold War, and still more 
years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of young 
Americans, unaware of history or unable to learn from it, 
have come to believe that capitalism is their real enemy, 
and that it should be replaced with socialism. They found 
a home in the Democratic Party, whose primary 2008 
election theme was the promise to redistribute America’s 

But the United States of America spent too many 
years fighting Marxism, and its free population of 
independent entrepreneurs will never succumb to that 
heresy. Be that as it may, Marx’s Manifesto of the 
Communist Party has endured to turn 165 years old this 
year, and the remaining Marxists of the world seem to be 
still clamoring to see their fantasy finally come to pass: 
the eradication of capitalism. 

At the end of World War II, at a time when I knew 
nothing about Marxism, I also believed the Marxist 
disinformation about the marvels redistribution of wealth 
can perform. During those early days, I never suspected 
that by helping Marxism to grab Romania I was 
committing a crime against my own country, just like 
millions of Germans who supported Hitler’s National 
Socialism because they were convinced that they were 
also helping their country. 

Early on, millions of other Romanians were also 
persuaded, thanks to the Soviet “science” of 
dezinformatsiya, to believe that Marx’s redistribution of 
wealth would rescue their country. There were quite a few 
well-to-do people in Romania, and the government- 
controlled media launched powerful disinformation 
offensives to persuade everyone, in every social stratum, 
that Romania could be changed into a prosperous country 

just by confiscating their wealth. 

Stealing became a national policy on December 30, 
1948, when the Kingdom of Romania was abolished and 
the Popular Republic of Romania was bom. The new 
Marxist government confiscated the king’s wealth, seized 
the land owned by the rich Romanians, nationalized 
Romanian industry and banking, and sent most of the 
property owners to gulags. Then in 1949, the Marxist 
government turned its covetous eyes in the opposite 
direction, toward the poorest elements in the country. By 
forcing the peasants into collective farms, it stole their 
land along with their animals and agricultural tools. 
Within a few years, virtually the entire Romanian 
economy was mnning on stolen property. 

“Stealing from capitalism is moral, comrades,” I heard 
Nikita Khmshchev repeatedly say. “Don’t raise your 
eyebrows, comrades. I intentionally used the word steal 
Stealing from our enemy is moral,” he used to explain. 

“Stealing from capitalists is a Marxist duty,” my 

former boss, Romania’s president Nicolae Ceau§escu, 

used to sermonize during the years I was his national 
security adviser. 

Both men rose to lead their countries without ever 
having earned a single penny in any productive job. 
Neither man had the slightest idea about what made an 
economy work, and each passionately believed that 
stealing from the rich was the magic wand that would 

cure all his country’s economic ills. Both were leading 
formerly free countries, transformed into Marxist 
dictatorships through massive wealth redistribution, 
which eventually made the government the mother and 
father of everything. 

Both Khrushchev and Ceau§escu, however, died 

before learning that in the long run Marxist stealing does 
not pay, even when committed by the government of a 
superpower, as the economic collapse of the Soviet Union 
devastatingly proved. 



In 2008, veteran Washington journalist David S. 
Broder candidly compared Sen. Barack Obama’s tactics 
for hiding his past to the tactics military pilots use to 
protect themselves when flying over a target heavily 
defended by antiaircraft guns: “They release a cloud of 
fine metal scraps, hoping to confuse the aim of the shells 
or missiles being fired in their direction.”^ This is also a 
good characterization of glasnost, which, as I explained 
earlier, is an old Russian term for polishing the ruler’s — 
or would-be ruler’s — image. 

One of the overriding purposes of every glasnost I 
have known has been to hide the leader’s past by giving 

him a new political identity. Stalin’s glasnost was 
designed to conceal his horrific crimes by portraying him 
as an earthly god. Khrushchev’s glasnost was to create a 
peaceful international facade for the man who brought the 
Kremlin’s political assassinations to the West (as proved 
by the West German Supreme Court in October 1962, 
during the public trial of Bogdan Stashinsky, a KGB 
officer who had been decorated by Khrushchev himself 
for assassinating enemies of the Soviet Union living in the 

West).^ Ceau§escu, who attained the rank of general after 

secretly attending a Red Army school for political 
commissaries in Moscow, focused his glasnost on hiding 
that past by portraying himself as a Romanian Napoleon 
— another five-foot-three tyrant — who hated Russia. 
Gorbachev, recruited by the KGB when he was studying 
at Moscow State University,^ designed his glasnost to veil 
his KGB past by portraying him as a magician-like leader 
who displayed a flirtatious “Miss KGB” to Western 
correspondents while pledging to transform the Soviet 
Union into a “Marxist society of free people.”^ 

Thus it was that in America, the 2008 election 
campaign for the White House was, for me, a major case 
of deja vu. It felt as though I were watching a replay of 

one of those election campaigns of Ceau§escu’s in which 

I was involved during my years in Romania. Ceau§escu’s 
media painted the Romania of his predecessor. 

Gheorghiu-Dej, as a decaying, corrupt, economically 
devastated country and demanded it be changed by 
redistributing the country’s wealth. It was a 
disinformation campaign. 

In the same way, the establishment US media painted 
America as a decaying, racist, predatory capitalist realm 
unable to provide medical care for the poor, rebuild her 
“crumbling schools,” or replace the “shuttered mills that 
once provided a decent life for men and women of every 
race,”^ and promised all this could be changed by 
redistributing the country’s wealth. That also was a 
disinformation campaign. 

Just as Ceau§escu loved to remind everyone that 

someone as great as he “is born once every five hundred 
years,” so did Sen. Barack Obama portentously proclaim, 
“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” artfully 
substituting the regal “we” to convey his actual meaning: 
I am the One you have been waiting for. Meanwhile, 
Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters had a large 
poster of communist idol Che Guevara hanging on the 
wall, as revealed by that city’s Fox News affiliate.^ 

The Democratic Party and the media both portrayed 
Obama an American messiah, and the senator agreed: On 
June 8, 2008, during an electoral speech in New 
Hampshire, he stated that the beginning of his presidency 
would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began 
to slow and our planet began to heal.”^ 

Once elected, during his first 23 1 days in the White 
House, Obama gave 263 speeches,^ all of them essentially 
focused on himself His 2010 State of the Union speech 
contained the word “f’ 76 times. In 201 1, when 
announcing that brave US military forces had killed 
Osama bin Ladin, Obama used the words “I”, “me,” and 
“my” a combined thirteen times in his short 1,300-word 
speech.”^ “I directed the director of the CIA ... I met 
repeatedly with my national security team ... I determined 
that we had enough intelligence to take action ... Aimy 
direction, the United States launched a targeted operation 
against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.” 

President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address 
contained the word / forty-five times and the word me 
thirteen times. By that time, he had been in the White 
House for 1,080 days and had given 726 speeches. USA 
Today notes that, by the end of his first term. President 
Obama had given 1,852 speeches, public remarks and 

Self-serving speeches have always been an important 
facet of glasnost. In fact, with the passage of time, 
Marxism has become a mere vehicle used by the 
“Marxist” rulers to build glasnost speeches aimed at 
promoting themselves, demonstrating Marxism’s 
prodigious adaptability. Lenin’s glasnost speeches 
changed Marxism so much that his followers ended up 
calling it “Leninism.” Stalin put Marxism, Leninism, 

Hegel’s dialectics, and Feuerbach’s materialism into one 
glasnost bowl and came up with his own simplified 
political doctrine, which he dubbed “Marxism-Leninism- 

Stalinism.” Ceau§escu’s glasnost speeches were a 

ludicrous mixture of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, 
nationalism, Roman arrogance, and Byzantine fawning 

called Ceausism. All were focused on Ceau§escu; each 

contained hundreds of instances of “Me,” “Myself,” and 
“1.” And all were so slippery, undefined, and ever- 
changing that he filled twenty- four volumes of his 
collected works without ever being able to describe what 
his Ceausism really meant! 

In Obama’s case, when he was first running for 
president in 2008, his preferred policies and voting record 
clearly revealed him to be “the hardest-left candidate ever 
nominated for president of the United States.” And who 
can forget his unvarnished Marxist remark to “Joe the 
Plumber” three days before the final presidential debate, 
that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for 

President Obama is a brilliant young politician who 
was bitten by the Marxist bug, and who evidently believes 
that the change from capitalism to socialism is what the 
US really needs. Running for president as a secret 
socialist, however, meant sailing on uncharted waters, and 
it seems the senator decided to cover his radical ideology 

by comparing himself to Ronald Reagan/^ and after his 
election, to Abraham Lincoln^ ^ and Teddy Roosevelt. 

Of course, people everywhere want their political 
leaders to be better than their predecessors. But the 
quintessence of Marxism is change, which is built on the 
dialectical materialist tenet that quantitative changes 
generate qualitative transformations. Thus, ‘'change, ” 
through the redistribution of the country’s wealth, became 
the electoral slogan in all Soviet bloc countries. 

Alas, change through wealth redistribution also 
became the electoral slogan of the Democratic Party 
during America’s 2008 electoral campaign. People always 
love a free lunch. No wonder the Democratic Party easily 
filled entire stadiums with people who demanded that the 
wealth of the United States be redistributed. Some of 

those electoral gatherings looked like Ceau§escu’s revival 

meetings — more than eighty thousand people were 
gathered in front of the now- famous Greek temple 
resembling the White House that had been erected in 
Denver, to demand that America’s wealth be 
redistributed. It was a superb show of disinformation. 

According to a March 12, 2008, amendment 
introduced in the US Senate by Sen. Wayne Allard (R- 
Colorado), funding just 1 1 1 of the 188 tax increases 
proposed thus far by the Democratic Party would steal 
$1.4 trillion from businesses and other taxpayers over the 
next five years. This huge redistribution of America’s 

wealth would cause the tax bill of people earning 
$104,000 to rise 74 percent ($12,000) and that of people 
earning more than $365,000 to rise by 132 percent 
($93,500),^^ but it would also heavily affect the average 
taxpayer earning $62,000, whose tax bill would rise 61 
percent ($5,300).^^ 

Millions of young Americans who were not yet paying 
taxes cheered, as did most of the people belonging to the 
38 percent of households exempted from paying taxes at 
that time. They were, of course, galvanized by the 
prospect that a Democratic administration would force 
America’s rich people to pay part of their own healthcare, 
mortgages, loans and school tuition, and they rushed to 
support Democratic candidates. 

The Democratic Party won the White House and both 
chambers of the United States Congress. Soon the new 
political leaders of the United States began changing into 

a kind of a Ceau§escu-style nomenklatura (in the Soviet 

bloc, the special elite class of people from which 
appointees for top-level government positions were 
drawn) with unchecked power. This new nomenklatura 

started running the country secretly, just as Ceau§escu’s 

nomenklatura did. “We have to pass the bill so that you 
can find out what is in it,” then-leader of the US House of 
Representatives nomenklatura, Nancy Pelosi, once told 
the media.^^ That was a first in American history. It didn’t 

take long before this nomenklatura — this arrogant, new 
elite class — ^began to take control of banks, home 
mortgages, school loans, automakers and most of the 
healthcare industry. 

When tens of thousands of Americans disagreed with 
this transfer of wealth from private hands into those of the 
government and stood up for traditional American values, 
the congressional nomenklatura called them “extremists” 

and potential “terrorists. That was what Ceau§escu’s 
nomenklatura had also called its critics. 

On February 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek, at that 
time the second-largest weekly newsmagazine in the US, 
proclaimed: “We Are All Socialists Now.”^^ That was 

exactly what Ceau§escu’s newspaper Scmteia proclaimed 

after he changed Romania into a monument to himself. 
Newsweek s change produced the same results as 
Scmteia'^ change — on a US scale. More than 14 million 
Americans lost their jobs and 41.8 million people got food 
stamps. The GDP dipped from 3-4 percent to 1.6 percent. 
The national debt rose to an unprecedented $13 trillion 
that year, and is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2019. 

Scmteia went bankrupt. In 2010, Newsweek was sold 
for one dollar (and even under new ownership and with a 
massive cash infusion, published its final print edition in 
December 2012). Also during 2010, a member of the 
congressional nomenklatura — and a stout admirer of and 

visitor to Fidel Castro’s Cuba — Rep. Maxine Waters 
began preaching that the future of America’s oil industry 
was socialism. While grilling oil company executives 
during a congressional hearing, Waters actually blurted 
out her intention to socialize the entire oil industry, 
quickly backtracking into more subdued language once 
she realized what she had said: “And guess what this 
liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about 
socializing, uh, uh, would be about basically about taking 
over the government running all of your companies. In 
1948, when the Romanian nomenklatura nationalized the 
oil industry, that country was the second oil exporter in 
Europe. Thirty years later, when I broke with Marxism, 
Romania was a heavy importer of oil, gasoline was 
rationed, the temperature in public spaces had to be kept 
under sixty-three degrees, and all shops had to close no 
later than 5:30 p.m. to save energy. 

A few conservative political commentators, like Rush 
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly, 
warned that Marxism was infecting the United States. 
Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, leaders of both the 
Democratic Party and Republican Party have failed to 
warn the country about this danger. It seems no one 
believes it possible that the United States of America, the 
leader of the Free World, could be vulnerable to the virus 
of Marxism. That is another consequence of 

After winning the 2008 elections, the Democratic 
Party began changing the United States into a monument 
to its leader as well. Heaven forbid I should be understood 

as comparing President Obama to Ceau§escu or any other 

Soviet bloc monsters — I strongly believe that the first 
black American president should have a place of honor in 
our country’s history — but I do note a few coincidences 
that should serve as food for thought. Following is a 
partial list of projects and places already named after 
President Obama: 

California: Obama Way, Seaside; Baraek Obama Charter 
Sehool, Compton; Baraek Obama Global Preparation 
Aeademy, Los Angeles; Baraek Obama Aeademy, 


Florida: President Baraek Obama Parkway, Orlando; 

Baraek Obama Avenue, Opa-loeka; Baraek Obama 
Boulevard, West Park. 

Maryland: Baraek Obama Elementary Sehool, Upper 

Missouri: Baraek Obama Elementary Sehool, Pine Lawn. 

Minnesota: Baraek and Miehelle Obama Serviee Learning 
Elementary, Saint Paul. 

New Jersey: Baraek Obama Aeademy, Plainfield; Baraek 
Obama Green Charter High Sehool, Plainfield. 

New York: Barack Obama Elementary School, Hempstead. 
Pennsylvania: Obama High School, Pittsburgh. 

Texas: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy, Dallas. 

Change — in the direction of greater “fairness” — was still 
the Democratic Party’s theme for the 2012 elections, but 
now the target was American capitalism. This new 
crusade was reflected in the article “Why isn’t capitalism 
working?” by Lawrence Summers, former head of 
President Obama’s National Economic Council. 
According to Summers’s essay, Americans have been 
disillusioned with market capitalism: Only “50% of 
people had a positive opinion of capitalism, while 40 
percent did not.” The reasoning: “[Capitalism produces] 
inequality and declining social mobility . . . The problem 
is real and profound and seems unlikely to correct itself 
untended. Unlike cyclical concerns, there is no obvious 
solution at hand.” The “problem’s roots,” according to 
Summers, “lie deep with the evolution of technology.” 
Capitalism was a profit-driven economic system that 
cared more about enriching its owners than about 
modernizing the country’s economy. The solution was 
government-financed research and production facilities. 

Solyndra! Remember that cute glass-and-steel factory 
built with $535 million of government money, which on 

August 3 1, 201 1, went bankrupt, laying off eleven 
hundred employees and shutting down all operations? 

That was the solution. That was the future, in Summers’s 

Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under Bill 
Clinton, added his own two-cents’ worth, calling 
American capitalism “Casino Capitalism,” which uses 
“other people’s money to make big bets which, if they go 
wrong, can wreak havoc on the economy ... .It’s been 
terrible for the American economy and for our 

The Republican candidate for the White House, Mitt 
Romney, happened to be a “capitalist,” and the 
Democratic Party/news media’s disinformation machinery 
ramped up a brutal campaign to crucify America’s most 
“heinous” capitalist, Mitt Romney. In addition to 
constantly demonizing his private equity firm, Bain 
Capital — ^which in reality is one of the most respected 
companies in the venture capital field — the disinformation 
team got creative. For example, in a five-thousand-word 
piece published on May 10, 2012 — at the same time as a 
rave report on President Barack Obama’s public embrace 
of gay marriage — the highly influential Washington Post 
depicted Romney as an anti-gay bully who had 
psychologically murdered one John Lauber, an allegedly 
gay classmate in their prep school days, by forcefully 
chopping off a shock of his bleached hair. According to 

the Post, Lauber was a fragile young man, and four 
decades later his body collapsed around a spirit broken by 
Mitt Romney. Wow! How dare that brute Romney now 
presume to run for president? 

A few days later, the whole Post story was shown to 
be a disinformation campaign, but by then the damage 
was done. Stu White, who had been featured by the Post 
as an eyewitness to Romney’s brutal assault on Lauber, 
told ABC News that, in fact, he had never even heard 
about the hair incident until contacted by the Post. 

Lauber’ s sister, Christine, confirmed that her brother had 
“never uttered a word about Mitt Romney or the haircut 
incident.”^^ Nor was Lauber a broken spirit. He was a 
tough guy, who took dressage lessons in England and 
toured the world with the Royal Lipizzaner Stallion riders. 
Moreover, Lauber did not die because his spirit was 
broken by Romney. He died of cancer. According to his 
obituary published in the South Bend Tribune at the time 
of his 2004 death, “Lauber led a full life, graduating from 
Vanderbilt and becoming a member of the British Horse 
Society. He earned seaman papers, was licensed in three 
states as mortician, and was head chef of the [upscale] 
Russian Resort in California. He also served as a civilian 
contractor in Iraq.”^^ According to his sister, Lauber kept 
his hair blond until he died. “He never stopped bleaching 

For people who dared to start their lives again from 

scratch in order to become citizens of this great country — 
as I did, and as did those millions who have patiently 
waited in line for their immigration papers — America is 
“the Canaan of capitalism, its promised land,” as prescient 
German economist Werner Sombart called it in 1906.^^ 
This “Canaan of capitalism” was not created by Jeremiah 
Wrights; it was created by a long procession of American 
presidents who were capitalists like Mitt Romney, men 
who were daring enough to become successful in business 
and to earn sizable fortunes. 

George Washington’s assets are estimated in today’s 
dollars at $525 million, Thomas Jefferson’s at $212 
million, Theodore Roosevelt’s at $125 million, Andrew 
Jackson’s at $1 19 million, James Madison’s at $101 
million, Lyndon Johnson’s at $98 million, Herbert 
Hoover’s at $75 million, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 
at $60 million. John Fitzgerald Kennedy may not have 
earned his own fortune, but he inherited an estimated $ 1 
billion. Bill Clinton’s estimated wealth is $80 million. 
Some of these presidents were better than others; but none 
has ever been called a “heinous capitalist.” 

The 2012 election ended that American tradition. 
Capitalism lost elections for the first time in the history of 
the United States. The Democratic Party’s disinformation 
machinery was able to distort Romney’s capitalist past to 
such a degree that he was always on the defensive, always 
portrayed as a greedy capitalist predator, when by all 

accounts his personal history was one of extraordinary 
generosity and humanitarianism. 

The United States won the Cold War because Ronald 
Reagan was elected president long after he had purged 
himself of his own youthful infatuation with Marx’s 
socialism. President Reagan was thus able to see through 
Marx’s seductive ideology and to identify it as the 
political swindle it really is. Then he could subdue it. Let 
us hope that President Obama will also change himself. 



The 2012 ASSASSINATION of John Christopher Stevens, the 
US ambassador to Libya, by Islamic terrorists vividly 
reminded me of the 1973 public assassination of Cleo A. 
Noel Jr., the US ambassador to Sudan. Both were killed 
by armed Islamic terrorists who stormed and occupied our 
diplomatic offices — an act of war against the United 
States, according to international law. Both coordinators 
of these assassinations became known to the US 
government, which chose to keep their identities a secret 
for political reasons. 

Let me take you back in time four decades and provide 
an insider’s view of what really went on, because I 

believe there are some important lessons to be learned 
about handling today’s crises. 

In 1973, PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s liaison officer for 
Romania, Hani al-Hassan (nom de guerre Abu Hasan), let 
us Romanians know that Arafat had sent a commando to 
Sudan headed by his top deputy, Abu Jihad (ne Khalil al- 
Wazir), to carry out an operation codenamed “Nahr al- 
Barad” (Cold River), after a Palestinian training camp 
destroyed by Israeli fighter jets eleven days earlier. Abu 
Jihad’s task was to take hostage a few American 
diplomats in Khartoum whom Arafat wanted to use as 
exchange pieces for “freeing” Sirhan Sirhan, the 
Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy. 

“S-s-top h-him!” Romanian dictator Nicolae 

Ceau§escu yelled when I reported the news. Because of 

his close relationship with Arafat, Ceau§escu was afraid 
that his own name might be implicated in that awful 
crime. “S-s-stop h-him!” Ceau§escu repeated. 

It was too late. A few hours later we learned that, after 
President Richard Nixon refused the terrorists’ demand, 
the PLO commando executed three of their hostages: US 
ambassador Cleo A. Noel Jr.; his deputy, George Curtis 
Moore; and Belgian charge d’affaires, Guy Bid. 

According to Hassan, the PLO chairman himself ordered, 
via radio, that the hostages be shot. 

In 2002, 1 learned quite a few more details about 

Arafat’s personal involvement in this brutal assassination 
from James Welsh, a retired US Navy officer and former 
intelligence analyst for the National Security Agency 
(NS A) during 1972-1974. Welsh gave me original 
documents and intercept transcripts showing that in 
February-March 1973, NS A had secretly recorded the 
radio communications between Arafat and Abu Jihad 
during the PLO operation “Nahr al-Barad,” which ended 
with the killing of Ambassador Cleo Noel. These 
conversations were recorded by Mike Hargreaves, an 
NS A officer stationed in Cyprus, and the transcript was 
kept in a file code-named “Fedayeen.”^ 

According to Welsh’s documents, Arafat used a Racal 
single sideband radio tuned to 7150 kHz to communicate 
with Abu Jihad. On March 2, 1973, at around 8 p.m. local 
time, Abu Jihad radioed the order to execute the hostages 
taken in operation “Nahr al-Barad.” Because an hour later 
the international media had still not reported the killing, 
Arafat himself reiterated the order, via his radio, to kill 
the hostages. Later that same day, Arafat radioed his 
gunmen again, telling them to release Saudi and Jordanian 
diplomats and to surrender to Sudanese authorities. 
“Explain your just cause to [the] great Sudanese Arab 
masses and international opinion. We are with you on the 
same road.”^ 

To the best of my knowledge, the United States 
government never accused Arafat of this unequivocally 

proven crime — either in a court of law, or even in the 
“court of public opinion.” Nor did Arafat publicly 
acknowledge it, although he regarded that atrocious 
assassination as a badge of honor. I learned from 
Romania’s former prime minister Ion Gheorghe Maurer 

that in May 1973, during a private dinner with Ceau§escu 

in Bucharest, Arafat excitedly bragged about this cold- 
blooded assassination. Maurer, a Western-educated 
lawyer who had just retired as Romanian prime minister, 
attended that dinner. “Be careful,” Maurer told Arafat. 
“No matter how high-up you are, you can still be 
convicted for killing and stealing.” Although a fanatical 
communist, Maurer had a kind of prurient, superstitious 
fear of being caught breaking what he called those two 
most fundamental laws of civilization. 

“Who, me?” Arafat said, winking mischievously. “I 
never had anything to do with that operation.” 

Yasser Arafat was a product of the Kremlin’s 
“science” of disinformation, and he ultimately became an 
expert in manipulating this invisible weapon. Arafat - 
whose real name was Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman 
Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, and his nom 
de guerre Abu Ammar — was actually a bourgeois 
Egyptian nationalist-tumed-Palestinian-terrorist by a 
KGB disinformation operation in the mid-1960s. As a 
first step, the KGB destroyed the official records of 
Arafat’s birth in Cairo, Egypt, replacing them with 

fictitious documents attesting that he had been bom in 
Jemsalem and was indeed a Palestinian by birth. In the 
early days of his rise to prominence, many Arabists 
viewed Arafat’s new birthplace with skepticism. Even 
twenty-two years later, one of the best-documented books 
on the PLO stated that Arafat “was bom in Cairo or Gaza 
on 27 August 1929.”^ Eventually, however, it seems that 
his fictitious birth certificate manufactured by the KGB 
came into its own, for today the international media 
generally portray him as a Palestinian by birth. As Mao 
Zedong famously said, “a lie repeated a hundred times 
becomes the tmth.” 

Next, the KGB gave Arafat an “ideology” and an 
“ideological image,” just as it gave them to Indian 
communist Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the 
undercover KGB organization portentously named the 
World Peace Council. In Europe, most of such people 
officially came across simply as peace activists, women’s 
rights promoters, environmentalists, and the like. Those 
kinds of ideological orientations did not, however, have 
mass appeal in the Arab world. Therefore, the KGB 
disinformation machinery portrayed Arafat as a rabid anti- 
Zionist — an image that was not at all difficult. For him the 
KGB also selected a “personal hero” — the Grand Mufti 
Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had visited Auschwitz in the 
late 1930s and reproached the Germans for not being 
more determined in exterminating the Jews. (In 1985, 
Arafat is on record as having paid the mufti homage. 

saying he was “proud no end” to be walking in his 

Even while I was still in Romania, I did not know the 
name of the KGB officer handling Arafat — that was the 
normal practice. Although the KGB knew the identities of 
all DIE officers, it never disclosed the identies of its own 
officers — even the head of the Soviet foreign intelligence 
service. General Sakharovsky, traveled to Romania under 
an operational alias (Aleksandr Sakharov). Many years 
later, however, Oleg Gordlevsky, a former KGB officer 
who defected to Britain, revealed that in the 1970s, 
Arafat’s KGB case officer was Lt. Col. Vasily Fedorovich 
Samoylenko. The latter was also responsible for secretly 
bringing Arafat’s terrorists into the Soviet Union to be 
trained at the KGB’s Balashikha special-operations 
training school east of Moscow.^ 

The KGB disinformation department tasked Arafat to 
create and head a terrorist group named Fatah, and in the 
aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War it 
maneuvered to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO. 
Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a 
Soviet puppet,^ publicly proposed the appointment.^ The 
rest is history. 

In 1978, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and his KGB 
chairman, Yuri Andropov, involved my former boss, 

Nicolae Ceau§escu, in a disinformation plot, the goal of 
which was to get the United States to establish diplomatic 

relations with Arafat. The idea was simple: Have Arafat 
pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a govemment- 
in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Brezhnev 
and Andropov believed that newly elected US President 
Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait. Moscow gave 

Ceau§escu the job, because by 1978 he had become 

Washington’s most favored tyrant. Ceau§escu accepted it, 

because he envisioned that this disinformation plot might 
bring the Nobel Peace Prize to both Arafat and himself. 
“But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, after 

Ceau§escu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. 

“We were bom as a revolution, and we should remain an 
unfettered revolution.” Arafat postulated that the 
Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline to 
become a formal state. That statehood was only 
something for a future generation. That all governments, 
even communist ones, were limited by laws and 
international agreements, and he was not willing to put 
any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian 
stmggle to eradicate the state of Israel. 

However, my former boss was able to persuade Arafat 

to focus on tricking President Carter. Although Ceau§escu 

sympathetically agreed that “a war of terror is your only 
realistic weapon,” he also told Arafat that if he would 
transform the PLO into a government- in-exile and pretend 
to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with 

money and glory. “But you have to keep on pretending, 
over and over,” my boss emphasized. 

In April 1978, 1 accompanied Ceau§escu to 

Washington, where he convinced President Carter that he 
could persuade Arafat to transform his PLO into a law- 
abiding govemment-in-exile, if the United States would 
establish official relations with him. Three months later, I 
was granted political asylum by the United States, and 
Romania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel 
Peace Prize. In 1994, however, Arafat was granted the 
coveted prize because he promised to transform his 
terrorist organization into a kind of government- in-exile 
(the Palestinian Authority) and pretended, over and over, 
that he would abolish the articles in the 1964 PLO 
Covenant that call for the destruction of the State of Israel 
and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism. 

In 1995, however, the number of Israelis killed by 
Palestinian terrorists rose by 73 percent compared to the 
two-year period preceding Arafat’s Nobel Peace Prize. ^ 
At the end of the 1998-99 Palestinian school year, all 150 
new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority 
described Israel as the “Zionist enemy” and equated 
Zionism with Nazism. 

In September 2000, Arafat started a second intifada. 
By June 2002, there were already a recorded 13,494 
incidents of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, in 
which more than six hundred civilians had lost their 

lives. ^ Six months later, the number of Israeli civilians 
killed by the PLO’s “martyrs” exceeded seven hundred. 

Of course, people can change over the years, but only 
if they cut the ties to their past. I did just that. It was a 
wrenching experience, but it gave me an entirely new 
perspective. Arafat was never motivated to change, 
because well-meaning Western heads of state kept telling 
him what a great leader he was. At the signing of the Wye 
Accord at the White House on October 23, 1998, for 
instance. President Bill Clinton concluded his public 
remarks by thanking Arafat for “decades and decades and 
decades of tireless representation of the longing of the 
Palestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at 

Let us hope that the killer of Ambassador John 
Christopher Stevens in Benghazi will not get the Nobel 
Peace Prize, nor be given a red-carpet reception at the 
White House. 

Yasser Arafat died in Paris on November 11, 2004, 
following a short illness. The cause of death was not 
clear. In July 2012, Swiss reports on tests on Arafat’s 
clothing indicated that he may have died of poisoning 
with Polo-nium-210. In November 2012, an international 
team of forensic pathologists opened Arafat’s tomb in 
Ramallah on the West Bank and took samples from 

portions of his body, to carry out further investigation.^^ 

So far, as mentioned earlier, there has been just one 
other known case of death by poisoning with Polonium- 
210, that of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko 
(2006), who had defected to Great Britain and revealed 
some earth-shattering KGB/FSB secrets to the British 
foreign intelligence service, MI6. One of those secrets, 
which became public, was that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the 
current leader of al-Qaeda, was trained for half a year by 
the KGB/FSB in Dagestan in 1997.^^ Another of 
Litvinenko’s extremely damaging disclosures that became 
public knowledge was that Romano Prodi, a former prime 
minister of Italy and the tenth president of the European 
Commission, had been a longtime intelligence agent of 
the KGB/FSB. Litvinenko reported that he had learned 
this information from KGB General Anatoly Trofimov 
during the period when he, Litvinenko, was still working 
for the KGB/FSB. Trofimov was shot dead in Moscow in 
2005.^^ In 2002, the Mitrokhin Commission, a 
parliamentary committee set up in 2002 by the Italian 
Parliament to investigate alleged KGB ties to Italian 
politicians, concluded that Prodi was “the KGB’s man in 
Italy,” and that he had been peripherally involved in the 
1978 assassination of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, 
who was kidnapped and murdered by the KGB-fmanced 
terrorist organization known as the Red Brigades. 

On November 1, 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill — 

like Arafat — and was hospitalized. Litvinenko’s illness 
was later attributed to poisoning with Polonium-210, a 
highly toxic isotope known to be used by the former 
Soviet Union as neutron trigger, or initiator, for nuclear 
weapons. Litvinenko died on November 22, 2006. The 
Crown Prosecution Service, on May 22, 2007, called for 
the extradition to the UK of Russian citizen and resident 
Andrey Lugovoy (a former KGB officer), on charges of 
having murdered Litvinenko. On July 5, 2007, Russia 
declined to extradite Lugovoy. Overnight, he remarkably 
became a member of the Russian Duma, thus receiving 
parliamentary immunity! 

At the time of this writing, no one knows if Polonium- 
210 will be found in the samples of Arafat’s bones taken 
from his exhumed body. Nevertheless, there is solid 
ground for postulating that the KGB/FSB may have 
gotten tired of Arafat and decided to get rid of him. Arafat 
had become the symbol of today’s disinformation and 
terrorism, and he had started being known as the KGB’s 
man — at the top of the KGB community he was 
nicknamed ''Cheyadbom'' (from Chelovecheskaya 
Yadernaya Bomba, or human nuclear bomb). Original 
documents sneaked out of KGB/FSB archives after the 
collapse of the Soviet Union have added fuel to the fire. 

Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive describe Arafat’s 
close collaboration with my Romanian DIE and with the 
KGB in the early 1970s. Other documents disclose the 
KGB’s secret training provided to Arafat’s guerrillas, and 

reveal the supersecret channels used by the KGB to 
provide arms shipments to the PLO. Some of these 
documents even reveal the supersecret KGB dacha, code- 
named “Barvikha-1,” used by Wadie Haddad, the head of 
Arafat’s front organization in charge of smuggling 
weapons from the Soviet Union. Other KGB documents 
smuggled out by Mitrokhin show that KGB chairman 
Andropov sought Brezhnev’s approval to use Haddad for 
kidnapping the CIA’s deputy station chief in Lebanon. 

On May 25, 1970, Brezhnev approved the kidnapping, 
and the new chief of Department V (kidnappings and 
assassinations), Gen. Nikolay Pavlovich Gusev, assigned 
Haddad to the task.^^ Fortunately, that operation ended in 

Other secret KGB information that became public 
showed that, during a visit to Moscow in May 2001, 
Arafat forged a secret alliance with Iran, involving Iranian 
shipments of heavy weapons to PLO terrorists. This new 
partnership was arranged at a clandestine meeting in 
Moscow between two of Arafat’s top aides (Fuad 
Shobaki, the chief financial officer for military operations, 
and Fathi al-Razem, the deputy commander of the 
Palestinian naval police) and an Iranian government 
official whose name was not disclosed. In exchange for 
Iran’s help, Arafat agreed to provide Iran with access to 
Palestinian intelligence on Israeli military positions. 

Seven months later, on January 4, 2002, Israeli navy 

and air force units captured a freighter in the Red Sea 
carrying some fifty tons of offensive weapons that had 
been loaded in Iran. The ship, the Karine A, was owned 
by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and captained by a PA 
naval policeman. The Israeli military took the captured 
ship to Israel, where the Israelis publicly exhibited the 
arms found on it. Most of the weapons displayed were 
prohibited to the PA by the Oslo accord agreed to by 
Arafat in 1993. Among the latter were long-range, Soviet- 
built Katyusha rockets, long-range mortars, antitank 
missiles, and a large quantity of Semtex-type explosive. 
Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, the chief of the Israeli Army, said 
that if this warfare equipment “had reached the hands of 
[Palestinian] terrorists,” it might have “drastically 
increased the terror activity” in the Middle East.^^ 

It is significant that, although Israel and the United 
States published undeniable written evidence proving that 
Arafat was personally involved in the above Karine A 
affair concerning smuggling prohibited arms from Iran, 
Arafat had stubbornly denied, including in a widely 
publicized personal letter to President George W. Bush, 
that he had had any knowledge of it. 

In 2002, Arafat carried out yet another mass 
deception, the operational details of which indicated he 
still had KGB/FSB disinformation advisers helping him. 
By the spring of 2001, deadly suicide bombings within 
Israel had become an almost daily occurrence. These 

attacks culminated with the “Passover Massacre” of 
March 27. A Palestinian terrorist walked into the dining 
room of the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya and 
exploded a bomb, killing 29 people and injuring 140 
others. Unwilling to further tolerate the daily murder of 
its civilians, Israel launched operation “Defensive Shield” 
(March 29- April 21, 2001). Its purpose was to dismantle 
the PLO terrorist infrastructure, concealed in the city of 
Jenin, which had become a terrorist headquarters 
complete with bomb factories.^ ^ 

When the Israeli troops rolled into the PLO’s Jenin 
terrorist camp in April 2002, they found a whole network 
of tunnels and bunkers filled with explosives set to 
detonate when Israeli troops entered the site. Thirteen 
Israeli soldiers died when a fourteen-year-old Palestinian 
suicide bomber sparked a series of explosions that 
demolished such a building while the soldiers were 
searching it.^^ Thereupon, Arafat’s Palestinian Authority 
successfully launched a three-pronged disinformation 
plan that precisely followed the KGB rules for 
minimizing a national disaster: deny direct involvement in 
it, minimize the damage, and when the truth comes out, 
insist that the enemy was at fault. 

First, Arafat denied any responsibility in that tragedy. 
Next, he refused to acknowledge that any Israeli soldier 
was killed in that disaster. And when the truth finally 
came out, Arafat’s disinformation machinery launched the 

false rumor that the Jenin catastrophe had been caused by 
the Israeli soldiers, who had allegedly killed more than a 
thousand Palestinian civilians, who were still buried in the 

In May 2002, however, after all the bodies had been 
recovered from the Jenin camp, the deputy chief of the 
UN office in Jenin, Charles Kapes, reported that only 
fifty-four Palestinians had in fact been killed. The Israelis 
reported that they had found only forty-six dead in the 
rubble, including a pile of five bodies that had been 

“No matter whose figures one accepts,” concluded 
David Holley, a British military expert working for 
Amnesty International, “there was no massacre. US 
Secretary of State Colin Powell also officially announced 
there was no evidence of any Israeli massacre in Jenin, as 
alleged by the Palestinians.^^ 

In April 2002, former director of central intelligence 
James Woolsey dismissed PLO claims that its chairman 
had been democratically elected. “Arafat was essentially 
elected the same way Stalin was, but not nearly as 
democratically as Hitler, who at least had opponents,” 
Woolsey stated.^^ He knew what he was talking about, for 
he was at the CIA’s helm when Arafat’s PLO began 
making its grand conversion from an organization of 
bloody terrorists to an alleged governing body ostensibly 
holding fair elections. The exposure of the Jenin 

deception, which had the fingerprints of a KGB-type 
disinformation operation all over it, seems to have been 
the last drop in Arafat’s glass. It was time for him to go. 

A new, more Western-looking leader was poised to 
replace the bloodstained, old-fashioned, compromised 
Arafat. Few people noticed that Mahmoud Abbas, who 
took Arafat’s place and continues to be president of the 
(newly named) Palestinian National Authority, was also 
educated in the former Soviet Union. Abbas graduated 
from Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, a KGB- 
controlled school whose secret task was to create a new 
generation of foreigners dedicated to promoting the 
Kremlin’s interests in their home countries. The first 288 
students from forty-seven countries graduated in 1965. 
Soon after that. General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who had 
been chief Soviet adviser to Romania’s Securitate before 
becoming the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence boss, 
requested my DIE to help find “friendly foreigners” who 
could be granted scholarships at Lumumba. To the best of 
my knowledge, all foreign students at Lumumba were 
cooperating, in one way or another, with the foreign 
branch of the KGB. 

Furthermore, few people realized that soon after 
Arafat’s death, the United Nations itself turned into an 
open KGB/FSB puppet. On December 2, 2004, UN 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan endorsed the proposals of 
the “High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and 
Change,” commissioned by him to build a UN “for the 

twenty- first century. The panel recommended that the 
United States and Israel be further isolated by establishing 
the rule that only the UN could authorize preemptive wars 
against terrorism or any other threats. It is hard to believe, 
but true, that the main member of Annan’s blue-ribbon 
panel was former KGB general Yevgeny Primakov, a 
former Soviet intelligence adviser to Saddam Hussein, 
who rose to head Russia’s espionage service for a time — 
and to sing opera ditties with US secretary of state 
Madeleine Albright while secretly running the infamous 
Aldrich Ames spy case behind her back. Another 
prominent member was Qian Qichen, a former Red 
Chinese intelligence officer, who had worked under 
diplomatic cover abroad, had belonged to the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party when it ordered the 
bloody Tiananmen Square repression in 1989, had 
afterward risen to the Politburo, and in 1998 had become 
vice chairman of China’s State Council. And then there 
was Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab 
League, who “misses the balance of power provided by 
the Soviet Union”^^ and is still unable to condemn — let 
alone prevent — terrorism. 



The last Sunday in june was the first really summery day 
of the year 1978, enticing almost all of Romania outdoors 
to enjoy the warm sun. Even the country’s workaholic 

president, Nicolae Ceau§escu, cut short the meeting he 

was holding with his closest collaborators and pushed his 
entourage out for a game of volleyball. 

“Let’s go home,” Elena announced to her husband, 
after his team had, as usual, won the game. She cackled 
like a mother hen — and walked like a duck — but her tone 
of voice left no room for argument. 

As soon as the Ceau§escus had safely disappeared, I 

hopped into my car. “Home,” I commanded. “Home,” the 
driver repeated mechanically, slamming the navy blue 
Alfa Romeo into gear and taking off with tires squealing. 
“It’s been a while since you last saw your house in the 
daylight, hasn’t it. General?” 

In Ceau§escu’s Romania, as in all former Soviet bloc 

countries, the supreme leader was god, and his 
intelligence service was the magic wand that he hoped 
would transform the country into his temple. During the 
previous months I had been more enslaved to my job than 
ever before, and I now felt a sudden urge to do something, 
anything, for myself 

It had been a hectic few weeks. Ceau§escu, who 

wanted to be portrayed to the world as an independent 
nationalist who would breach the wall surrounding the 
Soviet bloc, had tasked my DIE with launching the lie in 
the West that he had been courageous enough to execute 
one of his senior generals. Ion Serb, after catching him 
red-handed passing secret documents to the Soviets. The 
general was neither charged with espionage nor executed; 
nevertheless, soon a stream of articles on the 

“courageous” Ceau§escu appeared in Western Europe and 
the United States. 

Once that fable had been floated, Ceau§escu had 

rushed me off to Bangui to prepare a new visit for him to 
the Central African Republic, although my real task was 

to persuade President Jean-Bedel Bokassa that Ceau§escu 

had not only anti-Soviet but also anti-American leanings 
and thereby to charm Bokassa into granting the 

“independent” Ceau§escu concessions for operating some 

of his diamond mines. As it turned out, that task proved to 
be a breeze compared to my efforts to find a beauty salon 
there for Elena. During her last visit to Bangui, her 
Romanian hairdresser had come down with an intestinal 
bug, so this time I — ^unsuccessfully — had to scour those 
equatorial rain forests for a beauty salon that would do 
Elena’s hair. It was all part of my job. 

Afterward I had accompanied my boss to Cairo, and 
even before we had returned to Bucharest, he packed me 
off to West Germany to give a new push to his Fokker 
gambit. Then the Soviet KGB’s recruitment of the 
commander of the Bucharest military garrison was 
secretly recorded on tape by Romanian 
counterintelligence, and all hell had broken loose. 
Overnight I had to bring Western medical experts to 

Bucharest to revive the prostrate Ceau§escu. The 

following week I had to ensure that the West was flooded 
with the rumor that the hardline communists in Romania 
had, under Moscow’s manipulation, rebelled against 

Ceau§escu’s policy of independence and had forced him 

to ask for a secret vote of confidence, which he had barely 
won through the promise of higher wages, a shorter 

workweek, and larger pensions. 

“Scare the [Western] idiots into thinking they might 
lose me,” he instructed. 

In short, this particular Sunday was the first time I 
would have a chance to spend a couple of hours all to 
myself, and I felt a sudden urge to indulge myself, even if 
it was only by watering the flowers in my garden. As we 
sped down Kiseleff Chaussee, the fancy Bucharest avenue 
leading to my villa, my mind wandered off, musing that in 
a few minutes I would be home. I could already picture 
myself jumping into the swimming pool — a long, 
refreshing swim to begin with. 

“Did you change the water?” I asked the driver. There 
was no chlorine available in Bucharest during those years, 
so the handful of elite nomenklatura people who were 
lucky to have a swimming pool had to keep replacing the 

“Fm sorry. General,” the driver said, nervously 
pumping the brake even though the street ahead was as 
clean as a whistle. “I forgot.” He mopped his forehead 
with his sleeve. Even after driving me for five years, he 
still broke into a sweat whenever he had done something 
wrong, although I cannot remember ever having raised 
my voice at him. Maybe that was just the trouble. 

The awkward silence in the car was broken by a 
female voice blaring out over the radio telephone: “Sixty- 
two, report to zero-one. Repeat, sixty-two report to zero- 

one.” Sixty- two was my code in Ceau§escu’s private radio 

telephone network, and zero-one was Ceau§escu’s. 

“Sixty-two reporting to zero-one,” I answered. So much 
for my swim. 

Without waiting to be told, the driver spun the car 
around to the left with a squeal of the tires and floored the 
accelerator. Magically, all the traffic lights stretching out 
before us at once turned green, as the militia officers 
manning them recognized my car. 

“Too bad. Comrade General,” my driver sympathized. 

Ceau§escu was in his enormous library pacing around 

in circles, hand inside his lapel, and going as fast as his 
stubby legs could propel his short frame. He had spent 
many hours in front of the mirror, perfecting his 
Napoleonic walk. Napoleon, also five-foot-three, was his 

“Who slept with whom last week?” Ceau§escu 

shouted across the room the moment he spotted me. 
Keeping tabs on the private lives of Romania’s highest 
dignitaries was another of my secret assignments. 

To become the unquestioned leader, one must know 
the weaknesses of one’s subordinates — that constituted 
the “kernel of truth” in disinformation operations aimed at 
demoting uncomfortable people. The typically Soviet — 
or perhaps historically Russian — tendency of the ruler to 
distrust everyone around him, and to misuse his 

intelligence apparatus to learn the human foibles of the 
country’s top bureaucrats, gave rise to supersecret 
bugging units assigned to monitor the top nomenklatura 
in the Soviet Union and some of its closest satellites. 

Among those secretly bugged by Ceau§escu were the 

country’s prime minister and his deputies, the members of 
the Politburo, and the most important members of the 
cabinet, such as the ministers of defense, foreign affairs 

and foreign trade. Eventually, Ceau§escu even went so far 

as to monitor his own children and all the members of his 
and his wife’s families. 

“What’s new with our man in Dunarea?” Ceau§escu 
asked, after I had filled him in on the latest juicy gossip. 

I had been waiting for that too. There were few things 

in life more important to Ceau§escu in those days than his 
project for heavy water, which he himself had baptized 
with the codename “Dunarea,” the Romanian name for 

the Danube. Ceau§escu dreamed of building himself into 

the leader of the Third World by making his 
“independent” Romania a nuclear country, and heavy 
water was the first step toward attaining that dream. Our 

man in Dunarea was a DIE illegal officer documented as 

a Western engineer who had allegedly never even heard 
of Romania. He had gotten himself hired by Atomic 

Energy of Canada Limited, where he had been given a 
top-secret clearance. 

Fortunately, I did have some good news about him 

that I could use to stave off another of Ceau§escu’s 

legendary outbursts of wrath whenever he disliked what 
he was hearing. The week before, I reported, we had 
brought the man into Romania “black,” in order to give 

him Ceau§escu’s latest orders. The cover for his absence 

from work, I explained, had been a long getaway 
weekend on the Spanish island of Majorca, and now he 
was already back in Canada. 

“No slipups?” Ceau§escu asked. Espionage was his 

I reported that one of my illegal officers had taken the 
man’s place vacationing in Palma de Mallorca, and that 
the tips he had given the hotel personnel had been fat 
enough for them to remember him by. The two illegal 
officers, I pointed out, could pass for twins. 

Ceau§escu allowed a smile to cross his sallow face. 

Any deception gave him a high. I said the fellow was as 
gung-ho as ever, and in two weeks he would be dead- 
dropping the first batch of undeveloped films containing 

blueprints for Dunarea. 

“Go-o-od!” Ceau§escu stopped in front of me, grabbed 
one of the buttons of my jacket, and lowered his voice. 

“Would it be dangerous to have the Dunarea plant built in 

Scomice§ti?” He giggled, evidently excited by the idea of 

seeing his otherwise unremarkable little native town 
elevated to become the heart of Romania’s nuclear 

As I remember, I paused for a moment, pretending to 
admire the twenty- four- volume sets of his collected 
speeches lining the library walls. Four months earlier, 

when Ceau§escu had made me responsible for Dunarea, 

he had signed a top-secret presidential decree charging the 
Ministry of Chemical Industry to produce heavy water 
industrially before the end of that five-year plan. Nobody, 
however, had dared to tell him that in all of Romania 
there was only handful of engineers who had even heard 
about heavy water, and I was thinking this might be a 
good day for me to break the bad news to him. 

“There’s just one little problem, though,” I ventured. 

“Out with it!” Ceau§escu’s beady eyes shot me a wary 

look. “Where’s the shit?” he asked nervously, anxious to 
get the bad news out in the open, where he could deal 
with it. “Did the Canadian police spot our man in 


By then I had learned that with Ceau§escu the best 
tactic was to let him guess for himself what the bad news 

was, rather than hit him over the head with it. Ceau§escu 

loved to watch whodunit movies, but only those in which 
he could anticipate the next move — he despised 
Hitchcock, whom he could never outguess. 

The problem was not with our man in Dunarea, I 
answered. He was as clean as a hound’s tooth. I tried to 
set the scene to help Ceau§escu along. The Canadians, I 

said, needed several hundred experts only to design their 
heavy water installations, and that was without counting 
the ones involved in constructing, and now in managing, 
their heavy water plant. 

“Got it!” Ceau§escu exclaimed, snapping his fingers. 

“You want to say we don’t have experts, right?” His 
expression took on a sly glint. “Well, that’s why I torture 
myself by putting up with you, mon cher'' 

Time to get it out, I thought, when I saw Ceau§escu 

winking in complicity. It would take Romania, I 
explained, a lot less time to build the factory as a joint 
venture with the Canadians than if we tried to do it all by 
ourselves based only on stolen technology. Here I stopped 
to read my boss’s face. Taking the offensive was a good 
tactic to use with him, but only up to a certain point. The 
trick was not to go beyond that point. 

For a moment, Ceau§escu looked puzzled. Then he let 
go of my jacket button. “N-No j-joint v- venture!” he 

finally yelled. “N-Never! If the C-Canadians could do it, 
we should be able to do it b-better!” Canada was only 
three hundred years old, he reasoned, raising his voice to 
a full-throated scream, while Romania had been around 
for more than two thousand years. 

Ceau§escu’s increased stuttering betrayed a towering 

rage, which had, as usual, blown up with the suddenness 
of a summer thunderstorm. High time to beat a retreat: 
“Fve got a new movie for you this evening, if you like — 
one about Napoleon.” 

“Where is it?” Ceau§escu asked, dropping his stutter. 
“In the trunk of my car.” 

“What are we waiting for?” Ceau§escu led the way to 

his movie room with eager step and vigorously swinging 
arms. The rhythmic clickety-click as his heel taps hit the 
marble floor echoed down the corridor after him. 

It was long after midnight when I reached my home 

again. Ceau§escu had been unable to sleep, and he had 

kept me there for a second movie. Saluting the security 
officer guarding my house and the Polish Embassy, I 
stared ahead at my dark windows. Mechanically I 
unlocked the front door and hung up my jacket. I grabbed 
up one of the classified telephones on my desk and dialed 
four digits. “You’re free to go home,” I growled at my 
executive officer, Lt. Col. Vasile Pop. I banged down the 
receiver, immediately feeling sorry for the poor fellow on 

the other end of the line. His life was certainly worse than 
mine, as he could never leave the office until after he had 
learned that I had arrived safely home, and in the morning 
he had to be at his desk at least half an hour ahead of me. 

I was eating a sandwich in the kitchen when a loud 
jangling noise shattered the silence. It was the ring of the 

red telephone connecting me with Ceau§escu. 

Involuntarily I gave a shudder. “No, Comrade Ceau§escu, 

I’m not asleep .... No, I’m not Peking anybody. Of 
course I’ll be there in the morning ... .Nine o’clock? . . . 
Yes, Comrade, I’ll be there at nine.” 

In February 2006, 1 wrote about that final Sunday I had 
spent with Ceau§escu in an article titled “Leftwing 

Monster: Ceau§escu.”^ He did indeed end up as an 
egocentric monster, but he was not a monster when he 
came to power. I knew him well. Ceau§escu was 

transformed into a monster by Marxism and its 
disinformation machinery. 

The Socialist Republic of Romania has been defined, 
both within its borders and in the West, as a dictatorship 
based on the mass appeal of Marxist ideology and on the 
strong arm of the Communist Party. In other words. 
Socialist Romania — like the other Soviet bloc countries- 

has been wrongly regarded, both at home and abroad, as 
having a form of government that, although dictatorial, 
ruled through a political party and through decisions 
based on a political ideology. That was disinformation. 

Only a handful of people working in extremely close 
proximity to the Romanian leader and other Soviet bloc 
rulers, as I was, knew that over the years the Communist 
Party became a grab-bag of bureaucrats who, as a matter 
of fact, played no greater role in running those countries 
than did Lenin’s embalmed corpse languishing in the 
Kremlin mausoleum. 

Seen in its historical perspective, Marxism was such a 
raw, ill-defined and malleable system of government that 
one could make of it whatever one wished. Had it 
succeeded in France or Germany, Marxism would have 
certainly evolved into another Paris Commune or neo- 
Prussian military dictatorship, and it would have come to 
an untimely end like those other precedents. There was no 
way for any horde of bureaucrats or even for a huge 
military machine to sustain — for seventy long years — a 
form of government that utterly denied the motivational 
forces that have kept mankind alive throughout history: 
private property, competition and individual incentive. 

It so happened that Marxism triumphed in feudal 
Russia, defined by its own luminaries as “a whole 
separate world, submissive to the will, caprice and fantasy 
of a single man, whether his name be Peter or Ivan.”^ 

There, Marxism gradually devolved into a secret and 
complicated, but essentially uncontaminated 
samoderzhaviye, the traditional Russian form of 
totalitarian autocracy in which a feudal lord ruled the 
country with the help of his personal political police. 
Floods of government publications, agitprop agents and 
community organizers worked around the clock to 
persuade the rest of the world that their country, although 
dictatorial, was governed by a political party that based its 
decisions on an idealistic political philosophy. In reality, 
every Marxist country ended up being run by one man, 
who transformed that country into a monument to 

The outrageous Marxist cult of personality was bom. 
In some Marxist countries, this cult of the mler has over 
the years even come to give him the right of life and death 
over his people. Stalin killed millions with impunity in 
order to transform Russia into a monument to himself. 
After his Red Army “liberated” Romania, Stalin 
transformed that country into a monument to himself as 
well. Stalin portraits, Stalin statues, Stalin streets, Stalin 
boulevards, Stalin plazas, and Stalin factories sprouted up 
like mushrooms all over the country. Romania even got 
its own Stalin city. 

In 1947, Stalin forced Romania’s heroic King Michael 
to abdicate, decreed that Romania should become a 
Marxist country, and installed on its throne a little 
Romanian Marxist god named Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej. 

Soon after that, every Romanian town also acquired its 
Gheorghiu-Dej monument, Gheorghiu-Dej street, 
Gheorghiu-Dej boulevard, Gheorghiu-Dej plaza, and 
Gheorghiu-Dej square. Before long, quite a few industrial 
and agricultural organizations boasted similar names. That 
outrageous cult of personality worked for the illiterate 
Gheorghiu-Dej, who was able to keep his throne until he 
died in 1956. It did not work for Romania, however, 
which became a kind of European Ethiopia, whose lack of 
freedom and depth of poverty aroused worldwide pity and 

Ceau§escu “unmasked” Dej’s “unprecedented” cult of 

personality, and allowed the plebs to cast their eyes on the 
opulence of Dej’s palace. It was not long, however, before 

Ceau§escu proclaimed himself a “lay god” and began 

alternately residing in twenty-one lavishly furnished 
palaces, forty-one “residential villas,” and twenty hunting 
lodges. Grandiose arches inscribed “The Golden Age: The 

Age of Nicolae Ceau§escu” appeared at the entrances to 
most Romanian cities. The Romanian media — 
Ceau§escu’s main disinformation instrument — did its part, 

naming Ceau§escu the “Most Beloved Son of the People,” 

the “Guarantor of the Nation’s Progress and 
Independence,” and the “Visionary Architect of the 
Nation’s Future.” 

By 1989, Ceau§escu had seized all the top-level 

positions in the country and pinned them onto his own 
chest like war decorations, thereby establishing a dismal 
new feudalism in the middle of the twentieth century. 
Among them: president of Romania, leader of the 
Communist Party, supreme commander of the armed 
forces, chairman of the Supreme Council for Economic 
and Social Development, president of the National 
Council of Working People, chairman of the Socialist 
Democracy and Unity Front. By that time, the personality 

cult was extended to Ceau§escu’s wife as well. Elena 

Ceau§escu became the country’s first deputy prime 

minister, chair of the National Council on Science and 
Technology, and head of the National Council for Science 
and Education. Her national prominence had grown to the 
point that her birthday was celebrated as a national 
holiday, as was her husband’s. 

In 1978, when I broke with Ceau§escu, his portraits 
were hanging on the walls of every government office — 
and in Ceau§escu’s Romania everything, from factories to 

schools to theaters, to movies and churches, were owned 
by the government. 



After i had been granted political asylum by President 
Carter, the Romanian Supreme Court finally, on July 7, 
1999, unanimously adopted Decision No. 41, canceling 

the two death sentences given to me by Ceau§escu in 

1978. Decision No. 41 also ordered the Romanian 
government to restore my judicial and political rights, 
citizenship, military rank and all my properties 

confiscated by Ceau§escu. The chairman of the Supreme 

Court publicly stated that I had done in 1978 what all of 
Romania had done eleven years later — namely, sentenced 

Ceau§escu to death. 

To the best of my knowledge, I became the first, and 
only, high-level Soviet bloc defector to the United States 
to be rehabilitated by his native country’s Supreme Court 

(my Polish equivalent. Col. Ryszard Kuklinski, was 

rehabilitated by the Polish government). I believe I am 
also the first, and only, “case” in which the government of 
a country belonging to the European Union has refused to 
implement a decision of its own Supreme Court. 

Here’s what happened. In 2003, the Romanian 
ambassador to Washington, Sorin Ducaru (now 
Romania’s ambassador to NATO), informed the 
government of the United States and the American media 
(through Arnaud de Borchgrave, at that time editor-at- 
large of the Washington Times and United Press 
International) that Supreme Court Decision No. 41 had 
been implemented. It was a lie. Soon after, the 
Washington Times and UP/ reported that, as of January 
20, 2004, “Romania’s border points still had arrest 
warrants out for General Pacepa, should he try to return.”^ 

In Romania, my case is just the tip of the iceberg. In 
2009, that country’s Supreme Court, in Decision No. 293, 
declined to cancel a 1974 death sentence given by 

Ceau§escu to another intelligence defector, Constantin 
Rau^a, who also committed the “crime” of “betraying” 
Ceau§escu’s political police and helping the United States 

to defeat the Soviet evil.^ Rau^a, now an American 

citizen, became a reputable NASA scientist, who over the 
past thirty years worked on important US aerospace 
projects such as Hubble, EOS, and Landsat. He was also 
involved in the development of various space defense 
systems, making a substantial contribution to the security 
of the United States and her NATO allies. At the time of 

this writing, Rau^a is still sentenced to death in Romania, 

a country that will soon be protected by a ground-based 
ballistic missile defense system in the development of 

which, ironically, Rau^a himself played a role.^ 

Construction of that US interceptor missile facility at a 
former air base in Deveselu, Romania, is scheduled to be 

finished in 2014. Yet, absent a miracle, Rau^a will be still 
sentenced to death in that country. 

Today’s Romanian government may still consider 
anticommunism a crime, but it is nevertheless a NATO 
country. On November 23, 2002, when the Romanians 
were officially informed their country was being seated at 
the NATO table, a rainbow appeared in the sky over 
Bucharest. President George W. Bush, visiting Romania’s 
capital at the time, told a cheering crowd, “God is smiling 
at us.” God was indeed smiling at Romania. From one day 
to the next, that country, which has endured a long and 
dark history of Roman, Ottoman, Phanariot and Soviet 
occupations, no longer had to fear foreign domination. 

American soldiers, now stationed in Romania, are 
committed to defending that country’s territorial integrity 
with their lives. 

Yet Romania’s justice system seems incapable of 
facing up to the fact that the country has been admitted 
into NATO. At the same time, its top justice 
representatives — mostly former communist judges or 

officers of Ceau§escu’s Securitate — are chauffeured 
around in limousines imported from NATO countries. 

In the past five years, 6,284 people sentenced by the 
communists for, in one way or another, helping the 
United States and NATO demolish the Soviet empire 
have asked to have their sentences canceled, but only 
three have succeeded — because of media pressure.^ More 
than 500,000 patriots killed or terrorized by the 
communists have yet to be rehabilitated. At the same 
time, thousands of former Securitate officers and 
hundreds of thousands of its informants and collaborators 
who wrote the bloodiest era in Romania’s history are still 
shielded by a veil of secrecy. 

Professor Tom Gallagher, one of the world’s leading 
experts on contemporary Romania, who teaches the 
evolution of postcommunist states at Bradford University 
in the UK, concluded that Romania had moved from rigid 
egalitarianism to superinegalitarianism run by ex- 
communists who pay lip service to democracy. This new 
elite has “widened the gap between a parasitic state and a 

demoralized society.” 

In Gallagher’s view, Romania is not yet a democracy, 
because “a functional democracy cannot be based on lies, 
denial and amnesia.” This is also the subject of his book 
Theft of a Nation: Romania since Communism (London: 
Hurst, 2004), which concludes that “a Romania under the 
control of corrupt ex-communists threatens to be a 
dangerous force for regional instability.” 

I’ll put it my own way: Today we know all too well 
how a democracy can be transformed into a communist 
tyranny, but we are still learning how to reverse that 

In the 1950s, when I was acting chief of Romania’s 
Mission to West Germany, I witnessed how the Third 
Reich was demolished, how West Germany’s economy 
was rebuilt, and how that country became an established 
parliamentary democracy whose Wirtschaftswunder 
(economic miracle) made it the leading power in Europe 
to this day. 

But not until 1998 was the Bundestag able to adopt a 
law canceling the sentences given to Claus von 
Stauffenberg, who continued to be considered a traitor for 
having led a plot to assassinate Hitler. Horst Heyman, 
president of the Bundestag commission that initiated this 
law, apologized to the German people because their 
parliament had needed fifty years to arrive at that point. 
Now the Germans who fought Nazism are honored in the 

grandiose Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik 
Deutschland, the country’s new museum of history. 

Post-Ceau§escu Romania has changed for the good in 

many positive ways. The barriers the Soviets spent over 
seventy years erecting between themselves and the rest of 
the world, as well as between individual Soviet-bloc 
citizens, are slowly coming down. Romanian culture is 
reviving and a new generation of intellectuals is 
struggling to develop a new national identity. In 2004, 
Romania joined NATO, and in 2007 it was accepted into 
the European Union. Nevertheless, it may be that 
Romania must wait for a new generation, as was the case 
in the former Nazi Germany, to look back on 
communism’s crimes with objective eyes. 

Condemning the heresies of the past and rehabilitating 
its victims seems to be the most difficult step in the 
transition from tyranny to democracy. The former 
communist ruler of Poland, General Wojciech Jaruzelski, 
explained why: “If the victims should become heroes, 
what would we be?” 

Romania’s close proximity to Russia may not help 
either. In the 1970s, when I was Romania’s national 
security adviser, I accompanied our prime minister on a 
visit to Pope Paul VI in Rome. If he could grant us one 
wish, the pope asked, what would that one wish be? 
“Change our geographical location,” the clever prime 
minister replied. 

Indeed, Romania was the only East European country 
not sharing a border with any Western country, and 

Ceau§escu, the snake-oil salesman who had seized the 

communist scepter in 1954, had compounded the problem 
with decades of news blackouts and outrageous 
disinformation operations. 

Even when the Berlin Wall collapsed in November 
1989, Romania was still so isolated that within two weeks 

Ceau§escu succeeded in pulling off a grandiose party 

congress that, to the fanfare of trumpets, reelected him 
and his illiterate wife as the country’s benevolent rulers. 

The 1989 fall of the Kremlin’s East European viceroys 
was, for the most part, so peaceful that it enriched our 
vocabulary with the new term “velvet revolution.” The 
exception was Romania, where the upheaval cost 1,104 
dead and 3,352 wounded. Romania was also the only 
Soviet bloc country whose leader was executed by its own 
people. Ponder these differences with reluctant admiration 
for Romania, and you will realize that it may have a long 
way to go before becoming a truly Westernized country. 

Here’s where it gets personal. Currently there is a hard- 
hitting disinformation operation being conducted in 

Romania to rehabilitate Nicolae Ceau§escu and, in the 
process, to discredit the American CIA by discrediting me 

— for whom the CIA arranged asylum in 1978. The story 
goes that, according to some undisclosed documents 

allegedly found in CIA archives, Ceau§escu was really 

and truly a pro-Western leader who had intended to break 
Romania away from the Soviet bloc. Unfortunately, the 

story continues, Ceau§escu was executed in 1989 because 

the CIA had concealed the truth about him to avoid 
having to admit it had granted me political asylum even 
though it knew all along that I had actually been a KGB 
agent all my life. (If this tale seems convoluted, that is just 
the nature of many disinformation stories. They just have 
to be constructed around some “kernel of truth” — the 
political asylum I received in 1978.) 

History does repeat itself, and the annals of 
disinformation campaigns provide no exception. Recall 
the case of Pope Pius XII — originally highly praised by 
Roosevelt, Churchill, Einstein, and millions of others for 
his righteous outrage against the Nazis and his defense of 
the Jews during the Holocaust years, but who was then 
demonized by the next generation which bought into the 
Kremlin’s disinformation that he had supported Hitler. 
Well, maybe now it’s my turn to be demonized by the 
next generation. 

The current disinformation campaign to rehabilitate 
Ceau§escu purports to be based on a “revelation” made by 
former director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, 

according to which I had confessed to him, in his CIA 
office, that I was a KGB agent. This purported 
“revelation” was published in the violently anti-Semitic 
but very popular newspaper Bursa, which also alleged 
that I was a Jidan (in Romanian, the worst pejorative for a 
Jew) who hated the Romanians, as well as a homosexual 
and a womanizer.^ Former head of the Securitate Lt. Gen. 
lulian Vlad — who was in charge of assassinating me in 
the West after I broke with communism, and who was 
jailed three years for political homicide after communism 
collapsed — now has thrown more fuel on the fire by 
stating that I had been recruited by the CIA when I was 
ten years old.^ 

Anyone who may have read former director of Central 
Intelligence Woolsey’s public endorsements of me and 
my bona fides over the years (including his enthusiastic 
introduction to this book!) would quickly have realized 
the statements about me made in Bursa and by General 
Vlad are bold lies crafted in fantasyland. But soon after 
Bursa launched the rumor that I was a KGB agent, a self- 
styled “American historian” named Larry Watts appeared 
in Romania to tell more stories about me. Watts had made 

something of a name in Ceau§escu’s Romania and a 

fortune there post-Ceau§escu, and not long ago began 

traveling around that country to promote the so-called 
Romanian translation of a book he had allegedly written 
in English, in which he claims to “documenf ’ 

Ceau§escu’s intention to break away from the Soviet bloc. 

But, you see, the noble Ceau§escu was unable to do so 

because his closest adviser, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, 
was secretly working for the KGB — whence the title of 
Watts’s book. With Friends Like These. It has become a 
bestseller in Romania. 

It is noteworthy that Watts’s “original” book in the 
English language was published only in Romania and 
appeared only a year after its Romanian “translation” had 
seen the light. That pretty much proves its role as 
disinformation. Clearly, Watts’s book was first written in 
Romanian, for Romanian readers. 

With Friends Like These is the second book Watts has 
written for Romanian consumption. His first, Romanian 
Cassandra, is an anti-Semitic harangue intended to 
rehabilitate Ion Antonescu, an earlier Romanian dictator 
under the Nazis, who was executed in 1946 as a war 
criminal. Antonescu was instrumental in the killing or 
deportation of some two hundred thousand Romanian 
Jews and gypsies, and his atrocious crimes are powerfully 
exposed in the US Holocaust Museum. Romanian 
Cassandra is another far-fetched disinformation project. 
Romanians are nationalists and Watts is accumulating a 
personal fortune by exploiting their nationalist sentiments. 

Watts is a nebulous figure. Initially, he claimed to be 
working for the CIA, but that did not fly. In reality. Watts 

had settled in Romania during Ceau§escu’s reign and had 

worked for Ceau§escu’s brother, Gen. Hie Ceau§escu, 
who at the time was political commissar of Romania’s 
communist army. Watts settled in Ceau§escu’s Romania 

together with another American, Kurt W. Treptow, who 
became the director of a Romanian Culture Institute, but 
in the early 1990s Treptow was sentenced to seven years 
in jail for pedophilia and expelled from Romania. Watts 
married a Romanian citizen and became a Romanian 

Currently, Watts travels around Romania giving 
speeches in which he accuses the CIA of hiding the truth 
that Pacepa was, and still is, a KGB agent. He is 
accompanied by former head of the Securitate Lieutenant 
General Vlad, sometimes sporting his general’s uniform 
and the shiny medals he “earned” for defending 

Ceau§escu against CIA plots. 

I have glanced through Watts’s book but did not read 
it — I know my past. The meticulous student of 
communism Spyridon Mitsotakis did, at my request, 
spend several months studying With Friends Like These, 
after which he wrote me: “There is nothing in that book 
showing you had been a KGB agent.” According to 
Spyridon, Watts simply compiled all the articles about the 
KGB that I had published in the past twenty years, 
reaching the conclusion that only someone who had 

worked for the KGB could have known so much about it. 

In 2012, Bursa ignited a campaign to collect 
signatures on a petition demanding that the Romanian 
government open a criminal investigation against me for 
having been involved in the supersecret kidnapping in the 

late 1970s of Vladimir Dapcevic, a Yugoslav emigre 

living in Belgium. The kidnapping of Dapcevic was one 

of the best-kept secrets in Romania until 1987, when I 
revealed it in Red Horizons-Sind later in Programmed to 
Kill as well. I was not involved in that despicable 
kidnapping, which was conceived by Iosif (Broz) Tito and 

Ceau§escu and carried out by the Securitate s antiterrorist 

unit, a domestic outfit that had never been under my 
command. I did learn about it, however, and after I 
defected I revealed it both to the CIA and to the rest of the 
world, for it vividly illustrated the criminality of 
communist leaders. 

The 1979 conclusion of the yearlong Romanian 
investigation of my “betrayal,” a hundred-page report 
published in the White Book of the Securitate after 

Ceau§escu was executed, accused me of everything 
imaginable, but not of being involved in any 
assassinations.^ To the contrary, it stated that I sabotaged 
such operations, as the one against Axente Teusan, a 
Romanian defector living in Austria. That is true. In July 
1978, just days after defecting, I prevented three other 

DIE assassinations in the USA (against Ion lacobescu, 

Dumitm Dumitrachescu, and Constantin Rau^a — ^whose 

designated assassin was arrested by the FBI).^ I would not 
wonder, however, if the authors of the current 

disinformation aimed at rehabilitating Ceau§escu will 

insert fictitious documents in the DIE archive to amend 
my past as well. Changing people’s pasts to match the 
ruler’s future interests has long been a key disinformation 

Older Romanians who once lived under Ceau§escu’s 

reign of terror have treated Watts’s allegations with scorn, 
in the same way the people who once witnessed Pius 
XII’s strong defense of the Jews during the Holocaust 
treated Stalin’s 1945 allegations that he was “Hitler’s 
Pope” with scorn. A new Romanian generation has, 

however, started believing that Ceau§escu was indeed a 

national hero sent to the scaffold because Pacepa was a 
Jidan and not a Romanian, who betrayed his boss at the 
direction of the KGB and the CIA. 

Currently, the Romanian state television system is 
busily spreading these allegations around, and more 
people are believing them. Whenever an article about me 
is published in the Romanian media, a number of people 
pop up with comments describing me as a “traitor” and a 
Jidan who hates Romania. Small wonder that in March 
2009, the Bucharest house in which I had been living until 

I defected, which had afterwards become a kind of 
pilgrimage site, was quietly demolished overnight.^ 

Let me point out once again that in 1947, the Soviet 
disinformation machinery accused King Michael — ^who 
during the war had single-handedly turned Romania 
against Nazi Germany — of secretly being a Western and 
Eastern spy. That worked, and Romania went communist. 
The current disinformation campaign aimed at 

rehabilitating Ceau§escu at my expense also seems to be 

working. During the December 2012 parliamentary 
elections, over 60 percent of the votes went to 

Ceau§escu’s former communists. 

For full disclosure, I should mention that, soon after I was 
granted political asylum. President Carter did suggest that 
I may have been a KGB agent. In July 1978, in my 
eagerness to blurt out what I knew about the inner 
workings of the Soviet bloc’s disinformation machinery, I 

immediately reported that Ceau§escu’s glorious image in 

Washington had been handcrafted by the KGB and the 
DIE. I also reported that President Carter’s brother, Billy, 
who was in the process of becoming a paid Romanian 
intelligence agent, was helping that process. That was not 
good news for President Carter — who just three months 

earlier had publicly hailed Ceau§escu as a “great national 

and international leader.” Therefore, President Carter 
alleged that my defection had been concocted by the KGB 

to destroy his excellent relations with Ceau§escu. 

Sane minds prevailed, but President Carter prohibited 
me from publishing anything, including my own 
memoirs. Years later, Roger Kirk, who was the US 
ambassador to Romania when I defected, published his 
memoirs, Romania Versus the United States: Diplomacy 
of the Absurd, 1985-1989, written together with Mircea 
Raceanu, a Romanian diplomat sentenced to death by 

Ceau§escu, now a highly regarded American citizen. This 

book describes a September 1978 meeting between 
Romania’s foreign minister and Matthew Nimetz, 
President Carter’s personal envoy, who indirectly 

apologized to Ceau§escu for granting me political asylum. 

Nimetz also conveyed to the Romanian tyrant that the US 
administration would “do our utmost to assure that 
publicity on the Pacepa case is avoided completely, or 
kept at a bare minimum.”^ ^ Roger Kirk attended that 
meeting, and in his book he also provided a transcript of 
the classified cable he sent to Washington after that 

The Carter administration did indeed prohibit me from 
publishing anything for the rest of my life. Eventually, 
however, I found my way out of that trap. In September 

1985, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) helped me to send 
William Casey, the new director of central intelligence, a 
draft of my future book Red Horizons and a memo in 
which I asked why the US administration wanted to 
exchange my golden Romanian cage for one of its own 

In a letter dated December 17, 1985, Reagan’s CIA 
Director Casey wrote that he found the manuscript of Red 
Horizons “very interesting” and added that it would be 
effective in providing a clearer picture of what was really 
going on inside Romania. “The president has read it and 
was impressed,” he added. On July 18, 1986, Casey also 
agreed with my memo: “I must commend you for the 
thoughtful and constructive effort that went into preparing 
this document.”^^ 

During a subsequent seventh- floor dinner at CIA 
headquarters in Langley, attended by most of the CIA 
division chiefs. Deputy DCI Robert Gates apologized to 
my wife and to me for all those wasted years. That CIA 
dinner was followed by many years of mutually 
productive cooperation with the CIA. 

Red Horizons was published a few months later, and 
contained several pages describing the DIE recruitment of 
Billy Carter, who was soon forced to register officially as 
a foreign agent. 

Romania is a marvelous country, that once had the 
misfortune of falling under the spell of Marxism, 
disinformation and glasnost. I love my native country. I 
treasure my first fifty years of life there, my youthful 
dreams, my relatives, my good friends, and the graves of 
my parents. I started my life from scratch at the age of 
fifty, in order to help Romania’s courageous people rid 
themselves of one of the most disgusting tyrants history 
has ever known. I was heart and soul with my Romanian 
fellows during the burning days of the December 1989 
popular rebellion. I cheered with them when the borders 
were thrown open, and I am extremely proud of my native 
country’s freedom of the press. With all my heart, I want 
to see my fellow Romanians freeing themselves from the 
spell of Marxism and disinformation, and for Romania to 
reenter the democratic world to which it once belonged. 
That is another reason I wrote this book. 


In 1978, when I broke with communism, I left in my 
office safe a slip of paper on which General Aleksandr 
Sakharovsky, head of the Soviet bloc espionage 
community, had written, '‘Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed 
saepe cadendo '' — a drop makes a hole in a stone not by 
force, but by constant dripping. That was how 
disinformation worked: drop by drop by drop. It would 
take time, but wherever you could not use a drill, that was 
the best way to make a hole. 

This book, written together with Professor Ronald J. 
Rychlak, a leading authority on international law, the 
history of religions, and Pius XII, was conceived with the 
intention of laying out in clear language the inner 
workings of that gutta for all to see. Before going further, 
however, I want to express my deep gratitude to Ron. 
Without his outstanding expertise in the fields of religion 
and law and his unequaled aptitude for research, this book 
would never have seen the light of day. Its chapters 
describing Pius XITs real past, those vivisecting the KGB 

show trials against other high Catholic prelates, and those 
scrutinizing The Deputy are solid proof of Ron’s unique 
knowledge. When I broke with the Soviet bloc evil, I was, 
of course, unable to take any papers with me that could 
document all I knew about the Kremlin’s immense 
disinformation machinery and its supersecret operations. 
Ron proved to be superbly helpful at filling that void, 
spending years to document my information. The 
voluminous endnotes to this book are testament to his 

Disinformation has become the bubonic plague of our 
contemporary life. Marx used disinformation to depict 
money as an odious instrument of capitalist exploitation. 
Lenin’s disinformation brought Marx’s utopian 
communism to life. Hitler resorted to disinformation to 
portray the Jews as an inferior and loathsome race so as to 
rationalize his Holocaust. Disinformation was the tool 
used by Stalin to dispossess a third of the world and to 
transform it into a string of gulags. Khrushchev’s 
disinformation widened the gap between Christianity and 
Judaism. Andropov’s disinformation turned the Islamic 
world against the United States and ignited the 
international terrorism that threatens us today. 
Disinformation has also generated worldwide disrespect, 
and even contempt, for the United States and its leaders. 

During the Cold War, disinformation began infecting 
the shores of the United States itself By 2004, when our 
war in Iraq encountered difficulties, it became a kind of 

unofficial US policy. Although that war was broadly 
authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators of 
both parties, the media scorned it as “Bush’s war.” Soon, 
“Bush lied, people died” became the slogan of the 
Democratic Party, whose leaders suddenly forgot that 
they themselves had voted for that war. Democratic 
senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, called 
President Bush a miserable failure. The doormat at the 
entrance to the office of Democratic Party national 
chairman Terry McAuliffe featured a picture of the US 
president and the words, “Give Bush the Boot.” 

I did not have the privilege of being bom in this 
unique land of freedom, but I grew up with the picture of 
the US president hanging on the wall of our house in 
Bucharest. My father, who spent most of his life working 
for the General Motors affiliate in Romania, loved 
America, but he never set foot in this country. For him, 
America was just the place of his dreams, thousands of 
miles away, and the American president was its tangible 
symbol. At the end of WWII, we had President Tmman 
on the wall of our home. For us, and for many millions 
around the world, he had saved civilization from the 
barbarism of Nazism, and he had restored our freedom — 
for a while. From the Voice of America we learned that 
America loved Tmman, and we loved America. It was as 
simple as that. 

I still regard the American president as the symbol of 
this greatest country on earth. To me, he embodies the 

essence of our unique democracy: a government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people. The president of 
the United States is not a figurehead, as in parliamentary 
democracies. The US president is the country’s chief 
executive officer, its chief diplomat, chief guardian of its 
economy, and commander in chief of the most powerful 
military force on earth. The US president also heads the 
best intelligence community in the world, a cooperative 
federation of sixteen government agencies that are vital 
for the nation’s security and the peace of the world. 

In 2007, the Wall Street Journal published my article 
titled “Propaganda Redux,” in which I exposed the 
Democratic Party’s noxious use of disinformation to 
denigrate the president of the United States in an effort to 
win national elections.^ Criticizing the country’s president 
is as American as apple pie. Portraying him as the enemy 
of his own country is, however, an un-American 
phenomenon smuggled into the United States by the KGB 
disinformation machinery during the Cold War. My DIE 
was one of the smugglers. 

In the Soviet empire’s sanctum sanctorum, to which I 
once belonged, portraying the head of a country as its 
own enemy was called “political necrophagy,” as I 
explained in an earlier chapter. It constituted a separate, 
highly classified branch of the “science” of 
disinformation. Although Marxism loudly proclaimed that 
the deciding role in history was to be played by “the 

people,” all of the Marxists sitting on the Soviet-bloc 
thrones firmly believed that only the leader counted. From 
the lips of Khrushchev himself, I heard over and over: 
“Change the public image of the leader, and you change 

As I noted previously, the Kremlin’s political 
necrophagy was launched into the world on February 26, 
1956, when Khrushchev exposed “Stalin’s crimes” in a 
four-hour “secret speech.” He was successful in 
destroying whatever remained of Russian reverence for 
Stalin. After Khrushchev, political necrophagy became 
the rule in the Kremlin. Brezhnev accused Khrushchev of 
having destroyed the unity of the communist world. When 
Gorbachev came along, he accused Brezhnev of having 
devastated the Soviet economy. Gorbachev even had 
some of Brezhnev’s relatives arrested, in an obvious 
attempt to prove that the Soviet economy had been 
bankrupted by corrupt individuals, not by Marxism. For 
his part, Yeltsin accused Gorbachev’s perestroika of 
“leading the country to ruin,” and then Putin blamed 
Yeltsin for the “demise of the Soviet Union, the greatest 
catastrophe of the century.”^ 

In my experience, political necrophagy is a 
treacherous, double-edged sword. The same 
disinformation technique used by leaders to consolidate 
and magnify their own power by defaming their 
predecessor is inevitably turned against them by their 

successor. This has long been the way among Soviet bloc 
communist leaders. At the risk of repeating myself, allow 
me to remind you that Khrushchev’s death led to 
Brezhnev’s denunciation of his predecessor for 
undermining Russia’s traditional reverence for the 
Kremlin, even deeming him unworthy of burial in the 
Kremlin Wall alongside previous Russian leaders and 
refusing even to pay for Khrushchev’s grave marker. 

Likewise, when Ceau§escu was executed in 1989, 

Romania’s Supreme Court determined that so seriously 
had this tyrant subverted Romania’s traditional regard for 
its leaders that he merited neither a coffin nor a grave, and 
instead dumped his corpse into a bag and abandoned it at 
a stadium. 

In my other life, I spent decades scrutinizing the US 
from Europe and learned that international respect for 
America is directly proportionate to America’s own 
respect for its elected leader. In the 1950s, when I was 
acting head of the Romanian Mission in West Germany, I 
often heard people on the street saying that the “Amis” 
(German nickname for the American occupation forces) 
had made the difference between day and night for them. 
“Night” meant communist East Germany, of course, 
whose citizens were scraping along under economic 
privation and Stasi brutality. But that was then. The lies 
about American presidents spread during the Cold War by 
the Kremlin’s disinformation machinery eventually 

ignited a dislike or even hatred of America in a good part 
of Europe and the rest of the world. By 1978, when I 
broke with communism, the Soviet bloc disinformation 
machinery had allegedly collected some 700 million 
signatures on various international appeals blaming 
America for all the evils of the world — even for the 
famine in Ethiopia. 

Now political necrophagy has spread to the United 
States and is eroding our own international prestige. 
During 2002, a group of 128 American intellectuals who 
opposed the notion that the “war on terrorism” was a “just 
war” sent a letter to their European counterparts calling 
for “a sane and frank European criticism of Bush’s war 
policy.”^ Soon, European governments and public opinion 
began denigrating the United States with almost the same 
ferocity they’d had during the Vietnam War. France and 
Germany accused the US of torturing the al-Qaeda 
prisoners held at its military prison in Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba. The British newspaper Mirror alleged that the 
United States was “killing innocents in Afghanistan.”^ 

The Paris daily Le Monde published a front-page article 
by Jean Baudrillard (a revered figure among American 
humanities professors over the last twenty-five years) 
asserting that “the Judeo-Christian West, led by the US, 
not only provoked the [September 11, 2001] terrorist 
attacks, it actually desired them.”^ 

Robert Kennedy — not one of my favorite people — 

once said: “I do not run for the presidency merely to 
oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run 
because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous 
course and because I have strong feelings about what 
must be done.”^ Kennedy understood what the presidency 
was all about, whatever we may think of what he planned 
to do if given the mandate. 

America’s own respect for this unique republic and for 
the will of its people has been severely damaged by the 
“science” of disinformation. Helping my fellow 
Americans to restore this respect is another goal of this 

The United States is the leader of the Free World, but it is 
certainly not a perfect country. As another proud 
American once put it, America, like all nations, is a 
collection of human beings, and human beings are 
notorious for occasionally making bad decisions, being 
selfish, or ignorant, or unwise.^ But this imperfect 
America has almost single-handedly kept peace, freedom 
and democracy alive in the world for the last hundred 
years. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the 
world’s democracies numbered fewer than a dozen. Since 
this imperfect United States of America became the 
recognized leader of the world, 80 percent of the countries 
on Planet Earth are either democracies or proto- 


This imperfect United States of America has also 
become the propelling force of the world’s science and 
technology. Out of the 4.5 million patents issued since 
1790 throughout the world, the United States owns more 
than half of them — nearly 2.5 million.^ Out of the 629 
Nobel Prizes for medicine, chemistry, physics, and 
economics earned across the entire globe, the United 
States owns 305.^^ The United States also leads the world 
in Internet innovations, music, movies, and numerous 
other fields that require enlightened, outside-the-box 
thinking. From Apple to DreamWorks Studios to 
Amazon, the United States is the world’s innovator. 

The United States has been a beacon for the whole 
free world. What is its secret? To all those immigrants 
who stepped off the boat onto Ellis Island, speaking no 
English and carrying ten dollars in their pockets, it was 
the unparalleled freedom they found in their new country. 

On March 22, 2003, one of these immigrants — this 
writer — published an open letter to the Iraqi generals who 
were still fighting our troops. “Do as I did,” I told them. 
“Turn your weapons against your country’s tyrant. Break 
away from your tyrannical dictator before it is too late. 
Expose his crimes against humanity to the world, as I 

have done with those committed by Ceau§escu. Catch 
your fugitive tyrant, as my fellow Romanian generals 

caught Ceau§escu in December 1989, when he went into 

hiding in an attempt to escape the revolutionary wave 
sweeping communist dictators off the face of Eastern 

Europe. Make Saddam pay for his crimes, as Ceau§escu 

did for his — ^with his life.”^^ 

This book is another open letter, this time written 
jointly with Professor Rychlak (whose ancestors had 
immigrated from Poland) and addressed especially to our 
fellow Americans. Let us reject the Marxist redistribution 
of wealth, which has transformed so many once-noble 
countries into lands looking like giant trailer camps hit by 
a hurricane, with their leaders roasting in Dante’s Inferno. 
Indeed, all Marxist redistributionists who have ever risen 
to lead a country have ended up in hell — all, from Trotsky 
to Stalin, Tito to Zhivkov, Enver Hoxha to Matyas 
Rakosi, Sekou Toure to Nyeree, Khrushchev to 

Ceau§escu. All had their days of temporary glory, but all 

ended in eternal disgrace. A few remnants, like the Castro 
brothers, are still hanging on, but they certainly have a 
place in hell reserved and waiting for them. 

Let us, once and for all, also reject Marxism’s 
“science” of disinformation, its glasnost, and its political 
necrophagy that has been used so destructively over the 
years to squash freedom and bankrupt countries. Let us 
recognize them for what they are — and expose them with 
all our might — ^when such deceitful campaigns rear their 

ugly heads. Let us return to our own American 
exceptionalism and its traditions of patriotism, honesty 
and fairness. The United States of America is the greatest 
country on earth. Let us keep it that way for future 



1. Scott Swett, “Fanning Imaginary Flames: A Look Back 
at the Great Church Fire Propaganda Campaign,” 
American Thinker, June 11, 2011. 

2. Michael Fumento, “A Church Arson Epidemic? It’s 
Smoke and Mirrors,” Wall Street Journal, July 8, 1996. 

3. Swett, “Fanning Imaginary Flames.” 

4. Ibid. 

5. Fumento, “A Church Arson Epidemic?” 

6. Swett, “Fanning Imaginary Flames.” 

7. Arthur Weinreb, “Poll: Over 40% of Canadian teens 
think America is ‘evil’,” Canada Free Press, June 30, 

8. “Grecian Formula for Anti-Americanism,” Wall Street 
Journal, February 7, 2003 (Internet edition). 

9. Nicholas Kralev, “German Leader Links Bush’s ‘Style’ 

with Hitler’s,” Washington Times, September 20, 2002 
(Internet edition). 

0. Warren Hoge, “A Speech That Khrushchev or Arafat or 
Che Would Admire,” New York Times, September 24, 

1. Tom Baldwin, “Schools are still crumbling in ‘corridor 
of shame’ haunted by the old South,” Times of London 
Online, January 25, 2008 (Internet edition). 

2. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword 
and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret 
History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 

3. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, “Russian 
Orthodox Church chooses between ‘ex-KGB 
candidates’ as patriarch,” Times of London Online, 
January 26, 2009, citing Andrew and Mitrokhin, The 
Sword and the Shield. 

4. Astolphe, Marquis de Custine, Journey for Our Time: 
The Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custine, edited 
and translated by Phyllis Penn Kohler (Washington, 

DC: Regnery Gateway, 1987), 171. 

5. Ibid at 7. 


1. Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen, The 

Encyclopedia of Espionage (New York: Gramercy 
Books, 1997), p. 276. In Romania Pacepa knew only 
that Ignatyev had disappeared from sight. The DIE 
assumed that Ignatiev had been killed. 

2. Polmar and Allen, p. 180. While in Romania, Pacepa 
was given to understand that Dzerzhinsky had died of 
heart failure shortly after giving a speech before the 
plenum of the Central Committee. Apparently his 
argument with Stalin immediately followed that speech. 


1. Yevgeny Yevdokimov, “Russia comes to understand 
Mikhail Gorbachev,” Center for Defense Information 
Russia Weekly, No. 143, March 2, 2001, p. 5. 

2. Glasnost, Britannica Concise, as published on 

3. <> 

4. < 
q=glasnost&submit.x=3 1 &submit.y=2 1 > 

5. Tolkovyy SlovarRusskogo Yazyka (Explanatory 
Dictionary of the Russian Language), ed. D.N. 

Ushakov (Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia State Institute, 
1935), Vol. I,p. 570. 

6. Yevgenia Albats, The KGB: The State within a State 

(New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994), 23. 

7. Zhores Medvedev, Gorbachev (New York: Norton, 
1987), p. 37. 

8. Vladimir Solovyov and Elena Klepikova, Behind the 
High Kremlin Walls. (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1987), 
pp. 173-76. 

9. Christian Schmidt-Hauer, Gorbachev: The Path to 
Power (London: I. B. Tauris, 1986), p. 64. 

0. David B. Funderburk, Betrayal of America: Bush ’s 
Appeasement of Communist Dictators Betrays 
American Principles (Dunn, NC: Larry McDonald 
Foundation, 1991), p. 15. 

1. Yevgeny Yevdokimov, “Russia comes to understand 
Mikhail Gorbachev,” Center for Defense Information 
Russia Weekly, No. 143, March 2, 2001, p. 5, Internet 
edition, <>. 

2. Cal Thomas, “20/20 hindsight and insight,” 
Washington Times, March 24, 2002, Internet edition. 


1 . Adina Anghelescu, “Arsenalul Securitatii pentru 
Carlos” (The Securitate Arsenal for Carlos), Ziua, 
Bucharest, September 29, 2000, Internet edition. This 
article published the original Securitate report No. 
0010748 of June 22, 1981, which discharged from the 

inventory the explosive, weapons and ammunition 
given to “Carlos” in 1980. 

2. “Plesita, o bruta securista” (Plesita, a Securitate beast), 
Ziua, Bucharest, February 19, 2000, Internet edition. 


1. Congressman Frank R. Wolf with Anne Morse, 
Prisoner of Conscience: One Man ’s Crusade for 
Global Human and Religious Rights (Grand Rapids, 
MI: Zondervan, 2011), p. 46. 

2. Time, March 13, 1989, p. 20. 

3. The author has the original of that CIA letter. 

4. “The defection of General Ion Mihai Pacepa,” Radio 
Romania International, April 4, 201 1. 
< arh-art. shtml? 
lang=2&sec=40&art= 121 082>. 

5. Wolf with Morse, Prisoner of Conscience, p. 51. 

6. Stan Weeber, “A New Paradigmatic Work on the JFK 
Assassination,” H-Net Reviews in the Humanities and 
Social Science, October 2009. 


1. Barry Meier, “Most Iraqi Treasures Are Said to Be 

Kept Safe,” New York Times, May 6, 2003. 

2. Custine Journals, p. 161. 

3. Ibid at 14. 

4. Ibid at 7. 

5. Alexander Rose, “Biography: Royal Rake,” The 
Washington Post Book World, May 6, 2001, p. 4. 

6. Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya (Great Soviet 
Encyclopedia) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye 
Nauchnoye Izdatelstvo (State Scientific Publishing 
House), 27 June 1952, Second Edition), vol. 13, p. 566. 

7. Glenn Frankel, “Sneers from Across the Atlantic: Anti- 
Americanism Moves to West Europe’s Political 
Mainstream,” Washington Post, February 10, 2003. 

8. Sartre continued to support the Soviet bloc foreign 
intelligence community. During Pacepa’s years in 
Romania, he knew specifically that Sartre was 
considered an intelligence connection in the Soviet-and 
Romanian-sponsored terrorist war against “American 

9. Regis Debray, “The French Lesson,” New York Times, 
February 23, 2003 (Internet edition). 

0. Paul Berrman, “The Passion of Joschka Fischer,” The 
New Republic, August 27-September 3, 2001, p. 12. 

1. Herbert Romerstein, Soviet Active Measures and 
Propaganda, Mackenzie Institute Paper no. 17 
(Toronto, 1989), pp. 14-15, 25-26. WPG Peace 

Courier, 1989, no. 4, as cited in Andrew and 
Gordievsky at 629. 

2. WPC Rules and Regulations, adopted during its 1996 
Congress in Mexico, <>. 

3. Ibid. 

4. 14^^ World Trade Congress, New Delhi, India, March 
25-28, 2000. 

5. Beijing declaration of the World Conference of Women, 
September 15, 1995. Law Professor Mary Ann 
Glendon led the Holy See’s delegation at this meeting. 
At the end, she gave an important statement noting the 
Holy See’s several reservations to the final declaration. 

6. 8^^ March International Women ’s Day 

7. November 17^^, International Students' Day, to 
coincide with Day of Action for Peace, International 
Union of Students. 


1 . Izvestiya TseKa KPSS (Reports of the Central 
Committee of the CPSU), No. 3, March 1989. 

2. Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen (New York: 
Random House, 2005), passim, esp. 248. 

3. Textul decretului de decorare a Regelui Mihai de catre 

presedintele Truman (The text of President Truman’s 
Decree for decorating King Michael), Scmteia, May 14, 
1945, p.l. 

4. “Solemintatea Decorarii M. S. Regelui Mihai de catre 
Generalisimul Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin” (The 
ceremony for decorating H. M. King Michael by 
Generalissimo Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin), Scmteia, 
July 21, 1945, p. 1. 

5. “Guvemul Sovietic a Daruit M. S. Regelui Mihail, 
doua Avioane de Turism” (The Soviet Government 
donated two tourism airplanes to H. M. King Michael), 
Scmteia, July 22, 1945, p. 1. 

6. Sorin Rosea Stanescu and Cornel Dumitrescu, Autopsia 
unei Inscenari Securiste (The Autopsy of a Securitate 
Framing), Bucharest: Omega-Ziua, 1999. 

7. Pacepa, Red Horizons at 357-359. 

8. During most of those years his case officer was Viktor 
Vladimirov, a onetime chief of the NKVD station in 
Helsinki, who was promoted to the rank of general for 
his handling of Kekkonen. Christopher Andrew and 
Oleg Gordlevsky, KGB: The Inside Story (New York: 
Harper Collins, 1990), 432-433. 

9. Joseph J. Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (New 
York: Carroll and Graf, 2001) at 173. 


1. See Edward N. Luttwak, New Dynamics of the Soviet 
Empire: From Optimism to Pessimism, in Soviet 
Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Robbin Frederick 
Laird and Erik P. Hoffman, eds.), Piscataway, NJ: 
Transaction Publishers, 1986 at p. 61 (“Now fossilized, 
Marxism-Leninism has become. . . an official religion, 
since its propositions have become dogmas; Soviet 
Marxism-Leninism now has its ceremonies, rituals and 
idols, chiefly the figure of Lenin himself - whose bust 
presides over all schoolrooms, offices and places of 
public assembly.”) 

2. John Costello and Oleg Tsarev, Deadly Illusions (New 
York: Crown, 1993), p. 24. 

3. John Toland, Adolf Hitler (Garden City, NY: 
Doubleday, 1976), p. 548. 

4. Alexander N. Yakovlev, A Century of Violence in 
South Russia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 
2002), p. 165. 

5. Country Studies: Russia-The Russian Orthodox 
Church, U.S. Library of Congress, <lcweb2.1oc. 
gov/frd/cs>, accessed April 3, 2008. 

6. Gabriel Adriany, Die Kirche in Nord, Ost und 
Sudeuropa, in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, VII, 
(Herder Freiburg, 1979) p. 515. 


1. David E. Murphy, What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of 
Barbarossa (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 
2005) at XV. 

2. Hitler’s proclamation justifying the action is reprinted 
in A History of the Third Reich, vol. 4 Primary Sources 
(Jeff T. Hays, ed., San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 
2003) at 125. His thoughts on the need for German 
living space are reprinted in ibid at 26. 

3. The day that this statement was made, December 8, the 
first Jews were gassed at Chelmno, Poland. 

4. Hitler’s propaganda minister from 1933 on, Joseph 
Goebbels, also committed suicide. He remained hidden 
in Hitler’s bunker until May 1, 1945, when he poisoned 
his six children before he and his wife took their own 
dose of cyanide. Soviet forces later found all the 

5. Nomination Facts, Official Website of the Nobel Prize, 
< WWW .N obelprize . org> . 

6. Jan Olav Smit, Angelic Shepherd: The Life of Pope 
Pius XII (How York: Dodd, Mead, 1950) at 174. 

7. The Ukrainian Weekly, No. 18, Vol. XVII, March 28, 
1949, I. 

8. Orientales Omnes was issued December 23, 1945. 

9. Orientales Omnes, 59. 

0. Alberto Giovanetti, Pio Parla alia Chiesa del Silenzio 
(Milano: Editrice ancona, 1959), German translation. 

Der Papst spricht zur Kirche des Schweigens 
(Recklinghausen: Paulus Verlag, 1969), p. 131. 

1. Robert W. Stephan, Death to Spies: The Story of 
SMERSH, doctoral thesis, American University, 
Washington D.C., 1984, 61-64. 

2. Andrew and Gordlevsky at 343. 

3. Hugh Thomas, Armed Truce: The Beginnings of the 
Cold War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986) at 220- 
221 . 

4. Country Studies, Bulgaria in World War If Library of 

<lcweb2 . loc . go v/frd/cs/profiles/Bulgaria.pdf> . 


1 . Giovanni Sale, II Novecento tra genocidi, paure e 
speranze (Milan: Jaca Book, 2006) at 214. See also 
Cardinal Walter Kasper, “Recent Developments in 
Jewish-Christian Relations,” Speech at Liverpool Hope 
University (May 24, 2010) 

Hanna Diskin, The Seeds of Triumph: Church and State 
in Gomulka 's Poland (Budapest: Central European 
University Press, 2001) at 48-49 (Soviet bloc 
propaganda against the Catholic Church and the Pope). 
George Weigel, All War All the Time, First Things, 

April 2011 at 30. 

2. A translation of this whole speech, as it was broadcast 
on Vatican Radio, can be found in “The Catholic 
Church and the Third Reich: Pope Pius XII Surveys an 
Heroic History,” The Tablet (London), June 9, 1945. 

3. The full text of the address appears in Margherita 
Marchione, Pope Pius XU: Architect for Peace (New 
York: Paulist Press, 2000) at 143-152. See also Office 
of the United States Chief Counsel, vol. I, at 285-86; 
William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third 
Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (Greenwich: 

Fawcett Publications, 1962) at 324-25 (footnote); 

Purdy at 43. 

4. Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (New 
York: Hawthorne Books, 1967) at 131; see Ernst von 
Weizsacker, Memoirs of Ernst von Weizsdcker 
(Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1951) at 297. 

5. Lapide at 131. 

6. Eugenio Zolli, Why I Became a Catholic (New Hope, 
KY: Roman Catholic Books, 1997) at 187. 

7. Wartime Correspondence Between President Roosevelt 
and Pope Pius XII (New York: Macmillan, Myron C. 
Taylor, ed., 1947) at 113. 

8. Anton J. Gahlinger, I Served the Pope (The Mission 
Press, Techny, IL: 1952), 6. See “Churchill Talks with 
Pope on Peace; Vatican Quarters Gratified at Outcome 

Said to Promise a Profound Effect on Terms,” New 
York Times, August 26, 1944. 

9. Anne O’ Hare McCormick, Vatican Journal 1921-1954 
(New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1957) at 123 
(from a New York Times dispatch of September 6, 
1944). For his part, Pius described Churchill as very 
able and large-minded. Ibid. 

0. “German Martyrs,”r/me, December 23, 1940 at 38; 
Fapide at 251 (quoting Einstein in Time Magazine). 

1. “Acknowledging the Men and Women of Wisdom,” 
Wisdom, September 1957, at 2. 

2. Charles R. Gallagher, “Personal, Private Views: A 

newly discovered report from 1938 reveals Cardinal 
Pacelli’s anti-Nazi stance,” September 1, 

2003. See also Will Swift, The Kennedys Amidst the 
Gathering Storm (Washington, DC: Smithsonian 
Books, 2008) at 361 (Kennedy gave FDR a letter from 
the pope “denouncing Hitler’s betrayal of Christian 

3. In 1945, Fabian von Schlabrendorff, a Protestant 
member of the German resistance, wrote a 
memorandum to U.S. General William (Wild Bill) 
Donovan, in which Schlabrendorff reported that Muller 
“had orders from the Catholic Church to negotiate with 
representatives of the Protestant Church in order to 
harmonize their measures in the struggle against 
Hitler.” Memorandum to General Donovan from 

Fabian von Schlabrendorff. See also Schlabrendorff, 
The Secret War against Hitler. Pius became linked to 
the work of noted Protestant resistance leader, Dietrich 
Bonhoeffer, who eventually joined a conspiracy to 
assassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer’ s close friend and co- 
resister Eberhard Bethge wrote to him of having had an 
audience with the Pope. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Letters 
and Papers from Prison 214 (Eberhard Bethge, ed.. 
Collier Books, New York, enlarged ed., 1971). In a 
collection of letters, Bethge explained that this oblique 
reference related to meetings with Pope Pius XII’s 
close assistants Monsignor Robert Leiber and 
Monsignor Johannes Schonhoffer “who had been let in 
on the conspiracy.” Ibid at 267, n. 152. 

4. Secret message from the British Legation to the Holy 
See, January 12, 1940, British Public Record Office, 

FO 800/318 (reporting on a planned German 
offensive); Personal and Confidential Message from 
the British Legation to the Holy See, February 7, 1940, 
British Public Record Office, FO 371/24405 (reporting 
on the planned attack on Belgium and future plans for 
an invasion of France). One of Muller’s reports 
concerned a speech Hitler made at the S.S. Ordensburg 
(youth leader training center) at Sonthofen, where he 
had screamed that he would crush the Catholic Church 
under his heel, as he would a toad. Harold C. Deutsch, 
The Conspiracy Against Hitler in the Twilight War 
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1968) at 


5. Telegram from the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) to the 
Secretary of State, dated Feb. 28, 1940, in United 
States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the 
United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1940, vol. I 
(General), United States Government Printing Office 
(Washington, DC, 1959) at 126 (discussing the security 
of France and England, the mood in Germany and in 
the German military, Germany’s resources in the event 
of a long war, and Italy’s attitude towards war). 

6. Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity (New York: 
St. Martin’s Press, 1995) at 91. 

7. Testimony of Dr. Giuseppe Muller, January 24, 1969, 
before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of the Vicariate of 
Munich, on the beatification of Pius XII (Eugenio 
Pacelli), Part II, page 755. 

8. Gilbert (1981) at 59; Deutsch at 338-39. Le cardinal 
Maglione au nonce a Bruxelles Micara et a 

T internonce a La Haye Giobbe, May 3, 1940, Actes et 
Documents, vol. 1, p. 436, no. 293. 

9. See Wright at 1930; Charles Rankin, Pius the Man and 
His Efforts for Peace, in The Pope Speaks at 113. 

0. Messaggi del Santo Padre, ai Sovrani del Belgio, 
delTOlanda e del Lussemburgo, L’Osservatore 
Romano, May 12, 1940. 

1. Cianfarra at 226-27; Hatch & Walshe at 152; Charles 

Rankin, “Pius the Man and His Efforts for Peace,” in 
The Pope Speaks at 114. 

2. Hatch & Walshe at 152. 

3. Lapide at 137. 

4. The Tablet (London), October 24, 1942, at 202 
(quoting the Jewish Chronicle). 

5. Ibid. 

6. The Ciano Diaries at 537, 538. According to Ciano, 
Mussolini wanted to break a few wooden heads, but he 
had been dissuaded from doing so because the prestige 
of the Church is very high. Ibid at 538-39. 

7. The Catholic News, November 21, 1942, reprinted in 
Secretariat for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs, 
National Conference of Bishops, Catholics Remember 
the Holocaust, United States Catholic Conference 
(Washington, 1998) at 17. 

8. “Holy Father Extends Thanks to American Catholics 
for Aid,” The Catholic News, November 21, 1942. 

9. British Public Records Office, INF 1/893. 

0. Pius XIPs letter to Bishop Preysing, April 30, 1943. 
Actes et Documents, vol. 2, doc. 105, pp. 318-27. Pius 
frequently encouraged Preysing in his resistance work. 
Seev4 TEveque de Berlin, December 15, 1940, Actes et 
Documents, vol. 2, page 180, no. 58; v4 TEveque de 
Berlin, April 30, 1943, Actes et Documents, vol. 2, 
page 318, no. 105; A TEveque de Berlin, September 5, 

1943, Actes et Documents, vol. 2, page 342, no. 112. 
See also Lubac at 145; O’ Carroll at 89. In fact, Pius 
was the only world leader who took the resistance 
seriously. Charles Ford, “Invidious Comparisons,” 
First Things, January 2000, at 67. 

1 . The original Italian version was published in the 
official Acta Apostolicae Sedis of 1943 (volume 35, 
pp.5-8). For an English version, see Pius XII: Selected 
Encyclicals and Addresses 275-97 (London: Catholic 
Truth Society, 1949). 

2. Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Positio, 
appendix 25 at 282. See also Fisher at 13 (Pope Pius 
frequently used the word stirpe (race) to identify the 
Jews and no one could be in any doubt about his 

3. British Public Records Office, FO 371/34363 59337 
(January 5, 1943); Telegram from the Minister in 
Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State, Jan. 5, 
1943, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 
Diplomatic Papers, 1943, vol. II (Europe), United 
States Government Printing Office (Washington, 1964) 
at 91. 

4. New York Times, December 25, 1942. 

5. See Telegram from the German Ambassador (Bergen) 
to the Reich Minister, dated January 26, 1943, NARA, 
T-120, Roll 361, at 277668-70 (Ambassador von 
Bergen, on the instruction of Foreign Minister 

Ribbentrop, warned the Pope that the Nazis would seek 
retaliation if the Vatican abandoned its neutral 

6. Quoted in Rhodes at 272-73 (citing German archives: 

A. A. Abteilung Inland, pak. 17, vol. I, January 22, 
1943); see also Holmes at 140. In fact, a Protestant 
minister who helped circulate this statement was 
sentenced to prison for spreading a subversive and 
demoralizing document. He was also accused of having 
a critical view of the war and of being spiritually 
attracted to Jewish environments and sympathetic 
toward Jews. “For Berlin, Pius XII was a Subversive: 
Radio Operator's Experience of Spreading Papal 
Christmas Message,” Zenit News Agency, May 14, 

7. Notes de la Secretairerie d'Etat, May 5, 1943, Actes et 
Documents, vol. 9, page 274, no. 174. On August 30, 
the United States Secretary of State expressed doubt 
about the whole matter, sending a message that “there 
exists no sufficient proof to justify a statement 
regarding executions in gas chambers.” Ibid. 

8. The Tablet (London), June 12, 1943, at 282, n.l. This 
section was suppressed in Italy and Germany. 

9. Toland at 864; Holmes at 132; O’Carroll at 131; 
Burleigh (2007) at 252-53. 

0. “Glimpse at How Religious Houses Helped the Jews: 
Research Presented on Wartime Efforts in Rome,” 

Zenit News Agency, September 18, 2006. 

1 . This was reported by Senator Adriano Ossicini, founder 
of the Christian Left in Italy, who was arrested in 1943 
due to his opposition to the Fascist regime. More 
Echoes on Pope Pius XII, Nazi Holocaust, Catholic 
World News, June 27, 1996. (On the eve of one 
massive police sweep. . . the hospital received direct 
orders from Pope Pius XII to admit as many Jews as 
possible immediately.) 

2. From Hitler’s Doorstep (University Park: Pennsylvania 
State University Press, Neal H. Peterson, ed., 1966). 

3. See Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Positio 
(Summarium) Testimony of P. Guglielmo Hentrich, 
before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Rome, on the 
beatification of Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli). 

4. Lapide at 168. This was apparently not an insubstantial 
amount. According to one account, the future pope 
inherited $100,000 in the mid- 193 Os. 

5. Carroll-Abbing (1965) at 48. 

6. Graham, Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Hungary in 
1944 at 5-6. 

7. Lapide at 133. 

8. Holmes at 158. Lapide later increased his estimate of 
Jewish lives saved to between 700,000 and 860,000. 
Lapide at 269. 

9. Lapide at 226. 

0. John Thavis, “Many Jews Once Defended Pius and 
Documentary Evidence Supports Him,” Inside the 
Vatican, April 1998, at 30. 

1 . Le National Jewish Welfare Board au Pape Pie XII, 

July 21, 1944, Actes et Documents, vol. 10, page 358, 
no. 272. 

2. Herbert L. Mathews, “Happier Days for Pope Pius: 
Shadows of war are lifting for a Pontiff whose greatest 
interest is world peace,” New York Times, Oct. 15, 

1944, at 8. 

3. Le National Jewish Welfare Board au Pape Pie XII . 

4. F. Murphy at 64. 

5. Kevin Doyle, “Robert Graham, S.J.,” First Things, 

June/ July 1997. 

6. M. Davis at 101. 

7. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, One Step Forward Two Steps 
Back (The Crisis in Our Party) (1904) 


1. Darko Zubrinic, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac and Saving 
the Jews in Croatia During the WW2 (Zagreb, 1997), 
<http ://www. etf/j ews .html>; Dennis 
Barton, Croatia 1941-1946 (The Church in History 
Information Centre 2006); Zenit News Agency, March 

10, 1999; Ronald J. Rychlak, “Cardinal Stepinac and 
the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia during World 
War II,” The New Oxford Review, November 2009. 

2. Peter C. Kent, The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII 
(Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University 
Press, 2002) at 163. 

3. Prior to the German invasion of Yugoslavia (April 6, 
1941), the diocese of Maribor consisted of 654,000 
members, 254 parishes, 474 members of the secular 
clergy, and 109 members of the regular clergy. Within 
three months of the German invasion, the Gestapo 
arrested, killed, or expelled 85 percent of the clergy. Of 
the original 254 parishes, only 91 remained, each 
headed by a single priest. The others were closed or 
taken over by German authorities. The district of Ptuj 
originally had 30 parishes and 57 priests. It was left 
with just one active and two retired priests to minister 
to 80,000 Catholics. Similarly, in the diocese of 
Ljubljana, the area occupied by the Germans had 128 
parishes. By the end of June, 1941, 137 priests had 
been killed, 74 were expelled and 37 others had fled. 
That left only nine priests to minister to 215,000 
Catholics. Cianfarra at 266. 

4. The full original name of the organization was Ustasa - 
Hrvatska revolucionarna organizacija or UHRO 
(Ustasa - Croatian revolutionary organization). In 1933, 
it was renamed as Ustasa - Hrvatski revolucionarni 

pokret (Ustasa - Croatian revolutionary movement). 

The name comes from the word ustati which means “to 
rise” or “to stand up.” Accordingly, ustasa meant an 
insurgent or a rebel. It did not have fascist connotations 
during the party’s early years. On the formation of 
Croatia, see Kristo, The Catholic Church in Croatia 
and Bosnia-Herzegovina, vol. 1, at 39, 51-53. 

5. Heffron, Croatia ’s Fearless Defender. 

6. Gitman at 51. “[W]e have an abundance of public 
sermons by the Archbishop of Zagreb which illustrate 
how direct he was in criticizing both the National 
Socialist ideology and the Croatian government’s 
policy.” Kristo, The Catholic Church in Croatia at 60. 

7. Kristo, The Catholic Church in Croatia at 72. A 
surprising inconsistency in the evaluation of Stepinac 
appears on the very same page of one book that is 
largely critical of Pope Pius XII and the Catholic 
Church. Michael Phayer writes: “The bottom line is 
that neither Stepinac nor Pius XII publicly condemned 
the Ustasa government. To do so might have 
precipitated the end of the regime. ...” Later, on the 
same page, Phayer writes: “While many of the clergy 

supported Pavelic’s bloody ‘crusade,’ Archbishop 

Stepinac persevered in criticizing Ustashe crimes.” 
Phayer (2008) at 12. 

8. Gitman at 70. 

9. Alexander, The Triple Myth at 95; Barton. 

0. Zubrinic. 

1. Rychlak, Cardinal Stepinac and the Roman Catholic 
Church in Croatia. 

2. Stephen Lackovic, The Case against Tito 
(memorandum, 1947) at 23. See also Le cardinal 
Maglione au visiteur apostolique a Zagreb Marcone, 
February 21, 1942, Actes et Documents, vol. 8, page 
442, no. 289. 

3. Rick Hinshaw, “Cardinal’s Past,” Chicago Tribune, 
October 17, 1998, at 26. 

4. Pattee at 283-86 Six days earlier he had given a similar 

All of them without exception, whether they belong 
to the race of Gypsies or to another, whether they are 
Negroes or civilized Europeans, whether they are 
detested Jews or proud Aryans, have the same right to 
say, ‘Our Father who art in heaven’ .... the Catholic 
Church condemns. . . every injustice and every 
violence committed in the name of the theories of 
class, race or nationality. One cannot exterminate 
intellectuals. . . as Bolshevism has taught. . . One 
cannot extinguish. . . Gypsies or Jews because one 
considers them inferior races. 

Gitman at 70. 

5. Gitman at 70 (quoting General Glaise von Herstenau,); 
Zubrinic; Barton. 

6. Weigel, Witness to Hope at 73. 

7. Le grand rabbin Herzog au dHegue apostolique a 
Istanbul Roncalli, February 28, 1941, Actes et 
Documents, vol. 10, page 161, no. 83. 

8. Le grand rabbin Herzog au visiteur apostolique a 
Zagreb Marcone, February 28, 1941, Actes et 
Documents, vol. 10, page 161, no. 84. 

9. Ibid. See Kristo, The Catholic Church and the Jews at 

0. On the territory of the Zagreb Archbishopric alone, 
between 1945 and 1948 over 70 percent of the Catholic 
Church’s agricultural land was taken away through 
agrarian reforms. Apart from land, the reform “also 
resulted in the confiscation of the Church’s buildings, 
agricultural reserves, livestock, farming machinery, and 
tools.” Akmadza at 97. 

1. In the spring of 1945, the Catholic Church operated a 
number of private schools in Croatia, by October 2, 
they were all closed. Akmadza at 99. 

2. “Stepinac cried out against all injustice, especially 
against racism.” “Vatican Book Justifies Cardinal 
Stepinac: Example of Opposition to Fascism, Nazism 
and Communism,” Zenit News Agency, March 10, 1999 
(quoting author Gianpaolo Mattei). 

3. Matijevic at 139. 

4. Akmadza at 89. 

5. Ibid at 90. 

6. It is not clear why Tito first had Stepinac arrested and 
only later spoke with him. It is possible that Tito 
wanted to see the extent of his influence among the 
people and the Church or to see whether he could 
soften the archbishop up and then get him to cooperate 
on the issue of creating an independent Catholic 
Church in Croatia. Ibid at 91. 

7. Raymond at 191. 

8. Prcela at 53-54 (reprinting the charges). One possible 
reason for Tito’s decision to prosecute Stepinac was 

that in July of that year, the Chetnik leader Draza 

Mihailovic was tried and executed, so it was important 

for the authorities to create a balance in order to not 
provoke a Serb revolt. Akmadza at 95. 

9. Matijevic at 120. See The Black Book of Communism at 

0. Akmadza at 96. 

1. Matijevic at 135 (In June 1945, Zagreb’s Mufti, Ismet 

Muftic, was tried along with some Ustashe officials, 

and he was sentenced to death). “The Orthodox were to 
a point discredited by their collaboration with the 
Chetniks, but were not liquidated, because the Party’s 
leadership perceived the Church’s conduct in war as 

patriotic.” at 139. 

2. Ibid at 111, 121. Orthodox leaders were treated 
“somewhat more ruthlessly for collaborating with HPC, 
then [later] with the Chetniks.” Ibid at 122. 

3. “Archbishop Behind Bars,” Time, September 30, 1946. 

4. As Time magazine later reported: “the world was 
shocked by the cynical mockery of Stepinac’s twelve- 
day trial for collaboration with the Nazi puppet regime 
during the war.” “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 
22, 1960. 

5. Barton. 

6. Prcela at 55. Hurley was an interesting character and 
the subject of Gallagher, Vatican Secret Diplomacy. 

7. Josip Stilinovic, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac — A true 
Catholic nationalist! , The Catholic World Report 
(1998) <http://irish-’5048>. 

8. Lackovic at 3. Barton. During the communist era it was 
dangerous even to mention his name. Stilinovic. 

9. Aide for the Archbishop, Time, October 14, 1946; 

Bozanic at 308 (“Pope Pius XII immediately 

condemned the process, referring to the procedure in 
the court room as a bad legal process, ‘7/ tristissimo 
processo,' which in Italian not only means grievous, 
but a miserable process.”) 

0. Aide for the Archbishop, Time, October 14, 1946. At 

the trial, Stepinac did not focus attention on himself, 
“rather he concentrated on the Church, and he knew 
that the trial was not so much about him, rather the 
communists wanted to harm the Church and religion.” 
Kristo, An American View at 227. 

1. Stepinac ’s full statement can be read at 

2. The New York Times wrote that, “The trial of 
Archbishop Stepinac was a purely political one with the 
outcome determined in advance. The trial and sentence 
of this Croatian prelate are in contradiction with 
Yugoslavia’s pledge that it will respect human rights 
and the fundamental liberties of all without reference to 
race, sex, language and creed. Archbishop Stepinac was 
sentenced and will be incarcerated as part of the 
campaign against his church, guilty only of being the 
enemy of Communism.” New York Times, October 13, 
1946. Cardinal Francis J. Spellman, probably most 
important American Catholic prelate during and after 
the war, said: “the only thing Cardinal Stepinac is 
guilty of was his love for God and his homeland.” 
Savor. The American Jewish Committee also 
responded, saying: “[Stepinac] was one of the very rare 
men in Europe who raised his voice against the Nazis’ 
tyranny at a time when it was very difficult and 
dangerous for him to do so.” Barton. 

3. Kristo, The Catholic Church in Croatia at 85-86. 

4. This film was played at the Archdiocese of Zagreb’s 
celebration of the 10th anniversary of the beatification 
of Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac on September 19, 2008. 

5. Pattee at 211. 

6. Ibid at 21 1-12. 

7. Alexander, The Triple Myth at 113. 

8. Barton. 

9. Akmadza at 95; Prcela at 7. 

0. “Deal Rejected,” Time, July 23, 1951. Much later. Time 
magazine gave another, consistent account of this 

In grim Lepoglava Prison, Stepinac occupied a cell 
with an adjoining chapel, got good food and all the 
books he wanted. Unlike Hungary’s Cardinal 
Mindszenty, Archbishop Stepinac issued no 
pronouncements against the regime. He sat silent, and 
in the free world his silence sounded as a cry of 
reproach. Tito would gladly have been rid of him. 

Through a U.S. newspaperman he offered him his 
freedom if he would agree never again to practice his 
priesthood in Yugoslavia. Replied Stepinac bluntly: 

“I am completely indifferent concerning any thoughts 
of my liberation. I know why I suffer. It is for the 
rights of the Catholic Church. I am ready to die each 
day for the church. The Catholic Church cannot be, 
nor will it ever be, the slave of any regime.” 

“The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960. 

1. Marcus Tanner, Croatia: A Nation Forged in War 
(Yale University Press, 1997). 

2. Time reported his release as follows: 

The iron-barred gates of Lepoglava Prison swung 
open. Out walked Communist Yugoslavia’s No. 1 
ideologieal prisoner, Arehbishop Aloysius Stepinae, 
the gaunt, peasant-born primate of his eountry’s 
7,000,000 Roman Catholies. 

He did not walk into freedom. By order of the Tito 
government, Arehbishop Stepinae had been 
eonditionally released, after serving five years of a 
16-year sentenee on a trumped-up eharge of wartime 
eollaboration with the faseists. Aetually, he was on 
his way to a roomier internment: his native village of 
Krasie, where, as a government eommunique said, 

“the former arehbishop” would have to limit himself 
to the duties of a simple priest. 

“Dust in the Eyes,” Time, December 17, 1951. 

3. Ibid. In March 1952, Tito told a delegation from the 
First Congress of the Association of Yugoslav Students 
that “We released Stepinae so that we could knock a 
propagandistic weapon out of the Vatican’s hands, the 
weapon that Stepinae is a ‘martyr.’ Now they have 
problems because Stepinae is out.” Akmadza at 95. 

4. “The Guest of Dishonor,” Time, December 29, 1952 
(“Tito was mad at the Vatican for conferring the 
Cardinal’s red hat on his archenemy. Archbishop 

Aloysius Stepinac, who served five years in a Tito jail 
and is now restricted to his home village”). 

5. Traudl Lessing, Stepinac Speaks, Catholic Digest 
(April 1953) at 33. 

6. Bozanic at 314-15. 

7. Ibid 314. 

8. Encyclopedia of World Biography (2004); “Capsules,” 
Time, August 3, 1953 (“Armed with radioactive 
phosphorus supplied by the AEC, two top U.S. 
specialists flew to Yugoslavia to treat Cardinal Stepinac 
for polycythemia”). 

9. “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960. In 1954, 
143 Catholic priests signed a memorandum denouncing 
the government of Yugoslavia for persecution of 

Catholics. Matijevic at 125. 

0. “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960. 

1. Today, behind the altar, one can see a cut-out piece of 
the floor that was planned to be Stepinac ’s final resting 

2. “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960. 

3. Savor; Barton. Hinshaw at 26. Stepinac ’s innocence is 
now recognized by virtually all scholars. For a 
collection of documents vindicating Stepinac, see 
Proces Alojziju Stepiincu (Marina Stambuk-Skalic, et. 
al. eds.) Krscanska sadasnjost: Zagreb, 1997. For 

Stepinac’s anti-Nazi wartime sermons, see Propovijedi, 
govori, poruke (J. Batelja and C. Tomic, eds.), AGM: 
Zagreb, 1996; and Three Sermons Against Racism by 
Archbishop Stepinac (Church in History Information 
center: Birkenhead, 1998). See also Aleksa Benigar, 
Alojzije Stepinac, hrvatski kardinal (Ziral, Zagreb, 2^^ 
ed., 1993); Ivan Muzi’c, Paveli'c i Stepinac (Logos: 
Split, 1991) (the archbishop’s struggle against Paveli/); 
Vatican Book Justifies Cardinal Stepinac: Example of 
Opposition to Fascism, Nazism and communism, Zenit 
News Agency, March 10, 1999; Alain Finkielkraut, 
Msgr. Stepinac et les deux douleurs de L Europe, Le 
Monde, October 7, 1998 (rebuking critics of Stepinac). 

4. Alexander at 147; Barton. “He was a man who was 
disliked by the Nazis as well as the Communists for 
refusing to compromise the interests of the Catholic 
Church to the regimes of the moment. Stepinac was 
aware of the fact that both the Nazis and the 
Communists were plotting to kill him.” Gitman, at 70. 

5. Alexander at 138; Barton. 

6. Sabrina P. Ramet, Balkanski Babilon 113 (Zagreb: 
Alinea, 2005). See also Tanner at 180; Barton. 

7. Falconi probably was confused by the contradictory 
evidence that he found. Consider this observation from 
an early review critical of the book: “there are excellent 
citations in the book, especially by Pius XII, giving all 
the defense needed. But these are patronizingly 

explained away on psychological grounds.” Whitall N. 
Perry, Book Review: The Silence of Pius XII, by Carlo 
Falconi, 5:1 Studies in Comparative Religion (Winter, 

8. Consider: Chapter 1: The Collapse of Yugoslavia in 
1941; Chapter 2: Croatia in the Twenty Years of 
Yugoslav Rule; Chapter 3: How the NDH was 
Received by the Catholics; Chapter 4: The Persecution 
of the Orthodox Serbs; Chapter 5: The Croatian 
Catholic Episcopate Between Intransigence of Principle 
and Adaptation to Reality; Chapter 6: The Vatican was 
Aware of Ustase Crimes; Chapter 7: The Contradictory 
Attitude of the Vatican Towards Forced ‘Re-Baptism’ 
and the Persecution of the Orthodox Serbs. 

9. “Some of the heaviest-handed documentation comes in 
the 134 pages on the Croatian episode.” Whitall N. 
Perry, Book Review: The Silence of Pius XII, by Carlo 
Falconi, 5:1 Studies in Comparative Religion (Winter, 

0. Savor; Barton. Stepinac’s innocence is now recognized 
by virtually all scholars. See generally Stepinac: A 
Witness to the Truth. For a collection of documents 
vindicating Stepinac, see Proces Alojziju Stepiincu 

(Marina Stambuk-Skalic, et. al. eds.) Krscanska 

sadasnjost: Zagreb, 1997. For Stepinac’s anti-Nazi 
wartime sermons, see Propovijedi, govori, poruke (J. 

Batelja and C. Tomic, eds.), AGM: Zagreb, 1996; and 

Three Sermons against Racism by Archbishop Stepinac 
(Church in History Information center: Birkenhead, 
1998). See also Aleksa Benigar, Alojzije Stepinac, 
hrvatski kardinal (Ziral, Zagreb, 2^^ ed. 1993); Ivan 

Muzic, Pavelic i Stepinac (Logos: Split, 1991) (the 

archbishop’s struggle against Pavelic); Vatican Book 

Justifies Cardinal Stepinac: Example of Opposition to 
Fascism, Nazism and Communism, Zenit News 
Agency, March 10, 1999; Alain Finkielkraut, Msgr. 
Stepinac et les deux douleurs de L Europe, Le Monde, 
October 7, 1998 (rebuking critics of Stepinac). 

1 . “Assembly Condemns Communist Treatment of 
Cardinal Stepinac and Andrija Hebrang,” BBC 
Summary of World Broadcasts, February 17, 1992. 

The newly eleeted Croatian parliament rehabilitated 
Cardinal Stepinae by annulling the results of all 
Bolshevik-style trials under the former Yugoslav 
eommunist regime. The parliament speeifieally stated 
that the only reason for the eardinal’s eonvietion was 
Stepinae ’s refusal to lead a sehism. 


2. Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope at 47, 169, 173, 251, 254, 259, 
262, 321,352. 

3. Kristo went on to explain: “Ronald J. Rychlak 

responded at length to Cornwell in Hitler, the War, and 
the Pope. ... For understandable reasons, not even 
Rychlak knew that both Falconi and Cornwell based 
their judgments on the Catholic Church in Croatia and 
on Pope Pius XII on falsified documents from the 
Yugoslav secret police.” Kristo, The Catholic Church 
and the Jews at 44, note 150. 

4. Historians rely on documents to understand what 
happened at a given time. Great credibility is attributed 
to contemporaneous written evidence. In most cases, 
that makes perfect sense. As this episode reveals, 
however, when governmental agencies engage in 
intentional disinformation campaigns, 
contemporaneous written evidence may be very 
misleading. Non-contemporaneous fictionalized plays, 
like The Deputy, are even more misleading. 

5. Rychlak was a speaker at this event. See Rychlak, 
Cardinal Stepinac and the Roman Catholic Church in 


1 . There were dozens of KGB operational manuals on 
different topics, divided by the various branches 
(counterespionage, countersabotage, etc.). All were 
classified “top secret.” Some manuals, like the one on 
disinformation or on illegal operations, were classified 

“Top Secret of Special Importance.” See Bittman at 49- 

2. Unless indicated otherwise, throughout this book, the 
specific facts in Cardinal Mindszenty’s life are taken 
from his book Memoirs, translated by Richard and 
Clara Winston (New York: Macmillan, 1974). 

3. Mindszenty at 5. 

4. Ibid at 8. 

5. See Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2010) at 

6. Investigative Reports (Bill Kurds, A&E Network). 

7. Gilbert (1981) at 266 (citing Report of Veesenmayer to 
Ribbentrop, 6 July 1944, Nuremberg Trial Documents, 
NG 6584). 

8. Lapide at 153. 

9. Gilbert (1987) at 50; see Blet at 189-99. 

0. Le Nonce a Bucarest Cassulo a Mgr. Tardini, October 
2, 1944, Actes et Documents, vol. 10, page 428, no. 68. 

1. Lapide at 161. 

2. Mindszenty at 83-84. 

3. See Freemantle at 136 (“With disinformation, as with 
every other espionage activity, the Soviet Union 
heavily utilizes its satellite services.”); See Bittman at 
29 (similar). 

4. Robert McG. Thomas Jr., “Hanna F. Sulner, 81, Expert 

Drawn into Mindszenty Plot,” New York Times, 

January 19, 1999. 

5. Mindszenty at 87. 

6. Thomas Jr., “Hanna F. Sulner, 81. 

7. Mindszenty, 114-117. 

8. Steve O’Brien, “Shooting the Cardinal”: Film and 
Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case,” Seattle Catholic, 
January 11, 2005, as printed in 
<http://seattlecatholic.eom/article_200501 1 l.html.> 

9. Both movies are available on DVD. The Prisoner does 
not identify the cardinal who is persecuted, and it 
seems to draw upon elements from several of these 
post-war communist trials. 

0. Mindszenty, Wikipedia. 


1. Cardinal Beran died in Rome, at age 80. He is buried in 
the grotto of St. Peter’s Basilica. In 1998, the 
Archdiocese of Prague opened his beatification 

2. Wyszynski is sometimes seen as controversial in that 

some of his comments appear to have been anti- 
Semitic. On the other hand, it is not clear which 
statements were actually made by him and which ones 

were advanced by Soviet officials who wanted to 
discredit him. See Stefan Wyszynski, The Culture of 

Bolshevism and the Polish Intellectuals, in Polish 
Perspectives on Communism (Lexington Books, 
Bogdan Szlachta, ed. 2000). 

3. Ibid at 96. 

4. Diskin at 70-71. Wyszynski did not travel to Rome for 

the ceremony because he feared that the communist 
regime would not let him return. Ibid at 79. 

5. On the relationship between the Polish government, the 
Vatican, and the Church in Poland, see ibid at 20, 28 
(noting that Pius XII was responsible for some of the 
tension between the communist government and the 
Holy See). 

6. Ibid at 97. 

7. Ibid at 108. 

8. Ibid at 182-84. 


1. At that time almost all Soviet satellite countries were 
called “people’s republics.” 

2. Communist confidence in the “spark” went back to 
Lenin, who had named his revolutionary newspaper 
Iskra (The Spark), although he had actually borrowed 

the concept from the Russian Decembrist uprising of 

3. See Rychlak (2010) at 93-94. 

4. Andrew & Gordlevsky at 463-464. 

5. This French operation is confirmed in Andrew and 
Gordlevsky at 463-464. 

6. A1 Webb, “Synagogues bum as Europeans rage,” 
Washington Times, April 22, 2002 (Internet edition). 

7. See Parkes (“There was no need to invent anti- 
Semitism in Russia. It existed already.”). 

8. POGROM. Government-organized, reactionary- 
chauvinistic uprising of the mling classes, mass 
slaughter as a group of some element of the population, 
accompanied by murders, destmction and the 
plundering of properties. [Example:] Jewish pogroms 
in tsarist Russia. Tolkovyy Slovar Russkogo Yazyka 
(Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language), 
D.N. Ushakov, ed. (Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia 
State Institute, 1935) vol. Ill, 352. 

9. William Korey, Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat, and the 
Demonology of Zionism, The Hebrew University of 
Jemsalem (1995), 


0. The Okhrana had been founded in 1881 by Alexander 
III. It replaced the Department of State Police, which 
failed to save the life of his father. Tsar Alexander II. 

1 . Sakharovsky seems to have shared traditional Russian 
anti-Semitism. He told Pacepa that the Jews themselves 
bore the guilt for becoming a symbol of hate for the 
Russian tsars. After 1492, when some of the Jews 
expelled from Spain began settling in Russia, they 
became involved in the tax collection and 
administration of large estates where peasants worked. 
Those were among the few occupations open to Jews in 
tsarist Russia, and they did not make Jews loved in 
their new country. 

2. Philip Grave, “The Protocols: A Literary Forgery,” The 
Times, London, August 16, 17, and 18, 1921, 
documents/protocols/protocols. zion>. 

3. “Jewish Massacre Denounced,” New York Times, April 
28, 1903, p 6. 

4. George Legget, The Cheka: Lenin ’s Political Police 

1 14 (Oxford University Press, 1981), quoted in Andrew 
and Gordievsky at 44. 

5. The Communist International, also known as the 
Comintern, was an international communist 
organization founded in Moscow in 1919. The 
Comintern pledged to fight “by all available means, 
including armed force, for the overthrow of the 
international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an 
international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the 
complete abolition of the State.” 

6. Encyclopedia of Marxism, Marxist Internet Archive, 


1. Chronicle at 609. 

2. Elizabeth Spalding, Harry S. Truman: Faith, Freedom, 
and the Cold War, Grand Valley State University, the 
Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies (September 
15, 2009) at 2. The correspondence between the two 
world leaders was published in 1953 under the title: 
Correspondence between President Truman and Pope 
Pius XII. 

3. Kent (2002). 

4. On July 15, 1948, L ’Osservatore Romano published a 
decree about communism, which excommunicated 
those who propagate “the materialistic and anti- 
Christian teachings of communism.” This was widely 
interpreted as an excommunication of the Communist 
Party of Italy, but the party was not mentioned in the 

5. See J. Hughes at 255 (“Faced. . . with the most powerful 
Communist party in the Western world, the Pope in 
1949 approved a decree of the Holy Office which 
excommunicated those who voted for communist 
candidates in Italian elections”); F. Murphy at 14, 64; 

M. Davis at 93 (the Church was the only organized 
group strong enough to combat the “new strength of the 
Left”); Ibid at 94, 97 (noting that despite the 
excommunication decree, about one-third of the Italian 
Catholics voted for Communist candidates). See also 
Dunn at 142-43. 

The persecution in Hungary was a factor in the 
Vatican’s decree of condemnation of Communism in 
1949, which many of the East European Church 
leaders did not like because the Vatican decree did 
nothing to assuage communist persecution. In fact, it 
gave the communists a reason to intensify pressure 
against the Churches. The Polish Catholic leaders, in 
particular, thought the condemnation was 
counterproductive.... Nonetheless, the decree allowed 
the Vatican to vent its anger over the situation in 
Eastern Europe and it aroused world public opinion, 
particularly in the West, to the struggle that 
confronted civilization and helped crystallize 
Catholic voting ‘blocks into bastions of 
anticommunism and solidify Catholic support for the 
United States in the Cold War and to its effort to 
contain communism. It also put Italians on notice that 
the Communist Party in Italy, which was a potent 
political force, was unacceptable as a governing 

Ibid. In March 1937, Pope Pius XI had issued the 
encyclical Divini Redemptoris {Of the Divine 
Redeemer, better known by its subtitle. On Atheistic 

Communism), in which he attacked the communism 
that was beginning to spread throughout the world. He 
wrote that communism was historically evil, that 
communist governments were out to destroy religion, 
were Godless, were violent, denied the individual and 
the family, and reigned by terror. Pius XI concluded 
that “Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one 
who would save Christian civilization may collaborate 
with it in any undertaking whatsoever.” 

6. Acts Apostolicae Sedis, 1951, p. 217. 

7. Ibid., p.456 and 558. 

8. Diskin at 168. 

9. The Tablet of London, March 16, 1963. See also 
Graham (1996). 

0. See, e.g., Mikhail Markovich Scheinmann, Der Vatikan 
im Zweiten Weltkrieg (Dietz: Berlin, 1954; first 
published in Russian in 1948). For an analysis of Soviet 
propaganda, see generally Graham (1996). 

1. Gary B. Nash, Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Allen 
F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, and Carla 
Gardina Pestana, The American People, Concise 
Edition Creating a Nation and a Society, combined 
volume, 6^^ Edition (New York: Longman, 2007). 

2. Elizabeth E. Spalding, The First Cold Warrior: Harry 
Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal 
Internationalism 1 (Lexington: University Press of 

Kentucky, 2006). 

3. The American Committee for Freedom for the Peoples 
of the USSR was started in 1951, and its broadcast 
station became known as Radio Liberty. For more on 
VO A during this period, see David F. Krugler, The 
Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda 
Battles, 1945-1953 (Columbia: University of Missouri 
Press, 2000); for more on RFE/RL, see Arch 
Puddington, Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War 
Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty 
(Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000). 

4. See Rychlak, (2010) at 146-47, 158-63. 

5. Marilyn J. Matelski, Vatican Radio: Propagation by 
the Airwaves (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995). 


1. See Koehler at 26. 

2. Gleb Yakunin, Wikipedia, 

3. Keith Armes. Chekists in Cassocks: The Orthodox 
Church and the KGB, 


4. Reaction within the Catholic Church, 

5. Ibid. 

6. James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, (New 
York: Orbis Books, 1990) p. 27. 

7. Marta H. Mossburg, “Reverend Wright brings his anti- 
American crusade to Baltimore,” The Baltimore Sun, 
June 21, 201 1 (Internet edition). 

8. See Humberto Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite 
Tyrant (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005). 

9. Debray initially taught at the University of Havana, in 
Castro’s Cuba. He later became an adviser to the 
Socialist French president Francois Mitterrand. Debray 
dedicated his life to exporting Cuban-style 
Communism throughout Latin America, but in 1967 a 
U.S. -trained, Bolivian special forces unit captured him, 
along with Che’s entire guerrilla band. Che was 
sentenced to death and executed for terrorism and mass 
murder. Debray was sentenced to 30 years in jail, but 
he was released after three years following the 
intervention of French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. In 
February 2003, Debray published “The French Lesson” 
in the New York Times (which described Debray as “a 
former adviser to President Fran9ois Mitterrand” but 
omitted to mention that he had spent years in jail for 
terrorism). Regis Debray, “The French Lesson,” New 
York Times, February 23, 2003 (Internet edition). 

0. This picture of Che was originally introduced to the 
world by a KGB operative under cover as a writer — 1. 
Lavretsky, in a book entitled Ernesto Che Guevara, 

which was edited by the KGB. 1. Lavretsky, Ernesto 
Che Guevara (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976). 

The KGB entitled the picture Guerrillero Heroico 
(Heroic Warrior) and disseminated it throughout South 
America — Cuba’s area of influence. Italian millionaire 
publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, a Communist 
romantically involved with the KGB, flooded the rest 
of world with Che’s picture printed on posters and T- 
shirts. From one day to the next, the terrorist Che 
became an international leftist idol. Feltrinelli became a 
terrorist himself, and he died while planting a bomb 
outside Milan in 1972. 

1. A. O. Scott, “Saluting the Rebel Underneath the T- 
Shirt,” New York Times, December 12, 2008; Humberto 
Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant (Regnery 
Publishing, Inc. 2005). 

2. “World: Che: A Myth Embalmed in a Matrix of 
Ignorance,” Time, October 12, 1970. 

3. Humberto Fontova, “Che Guevara and the Obama 
Campaign,” Human Events, February 18, 2008, 
<http://www.humanevents.eom/2008/02/ 1 8/ che- 


I. Fedor Burlatsky, Khrushchev: Sketches for a Political 
Portrait, Literatumaya Gazeta, February 24, 1988, 

cited in Andrew and Gordievsky at 424. 

2. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers, translated 
and edited by Strobe Talbot 337 (Boston: Little, Brown 
and Company, 1970). 

3. Richard Felix Staar, Foreign policies of the Soviet 
Union (2001) at 79-88. 

4. U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on 
Intelligence, Soviet Covert Action: The Forgery 
Offensive, 6 and 19 Feb. 1980, 96th Cong., 2d sess., 
1963. Washington, DC: GPO, 1980. A 1074-page book 
documents that Metropolitan Nikodim, who in 1975 
became vice president of the World Council of 
Churches, served as an undercover officer of the KGB. 
Gerhard Besier, Armin Boyens and Gerhard 
Lindemann, Religion, state and society in the twentieth 
century (LIT Verlag Munster, 2008), 
Nikodim died in 1978, and the Kremlin appointed 
Metropolitan Kirill as vice president of the CPC. Kirill 
(Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev) worked for the 
KGB under the code name “Mikhailov.” In February 
2009, Kirill was “elected” patriarch of Russia. Tony 
Halpin, “Russian Orthodox Church chooses between 
‘ex-KGB candidates’ as Patriarch,” The Times of 
London, January 26, 2009. 

5. A 1962 KGB document signed by General Oleg 
Gribanov, chief of the KGB’s Second Chief 

Directorate, which was responsible for religious 
organizations, attested that Agayants was correct. 
Andrew and Mitrokhin at 487. Recently-released KGB 
documents show that one half of all the Soviet Union’s 
clergy were agents or undercover KGB employees until 
at least the end of the Gorbachev era. Keith Armes, 
Chekists in Cassocks: The Orthodox Church and the 
KGB, Boston University 


6. For details about the supersecret illegal officers see 
Pacepa, Programmed to Kill at 133-164. 

7. Erich Ludendorff had been a leader of the German 
Army, especially at the end of the First World War. He 
was a strong supporter of the Nazi Party and agreed to 
become head of the German Army in Hitler’s 
government. In his report Pius noted Catholic leaders 
who set a good example by standing up for the Jews. 

8. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Nunz. Monaco d.B. 
396, Fasc. 7, Pos. XIV, Baviera, p. 75. 

9. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Nunz. Monaco 365, 
Fasc. 7, Pos. XIV, Baviera, p. 83. 

0. “John XXIII on the Communists,” New York Times, 
April 14, 1959. 


1. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Nunz. Monaco 365, 
Fasc. 7, Pos. XIV, Baviera, p. 83. Khrushchev initiated 
a campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church, 
forcing the closing of about 12,000 churches. He 
renewed his crusade against religion in 1958. See 
Koehler at 7. 

2. See Bittman at 107. 

3. Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye, the First Chief 
Directorate of the KGB. 

4. William Totok, The Stalinist Trial against the 
Vatican ’s “Spies” (Iasi, Romania: Polirom, 2008), 199. 
The four catholics were Msgr. Josef Nischback, rector 
of the Catholic Cathedral in Timisoara; Dr. Theol. 

Franz Krauter, archivist of the Catholic diocese of 

Timi§oara; Sr. Hildegardis Wulff, cofounder of the 

Benedictine order of St. Lioba, who had dedicated her 
life to working with Volksdeutsche women in Romania; 
and Sr. Patricia Zimmermann. 

5. In his NRO article Moscow 's Assault on the Vatican, 
Pacepa mistakenly stated that Archbishop Augustin 
Pacha was exchanged for the two DIE officers. In fact. 
Archbishop Pacha was released from jail but died in 
Romania shortly thereafter. 

6. Pacepa’ s account was approvingly cited by Walter 
Cardinal Kasper. See World Jewish Congress, Recent 
Developments in Jewish-Christian Relations, Speech of 

Cardinal Walter Kasper at Liverpool Hope University 
(May 24, 2010). 

7. During his lifetime, it was thought that Casaroli was 
pro-communist. His posthumously published memoirs 
show that he permitted this perception to exist because 
it helped him with international relations. In reality, he 
was concerned about Catholics behind the Iron 
Courtain, but he was also anti-communist. Agostino 
Casaroli, The Martyrdom of Patience (2007). See also 
Koehler at 24 (suggesting that those around Casaroli 
may have been too sympathetic to communisim, and 
that affected his reputation). This helps explain the 
surprising amount of confidence that Pope John Paul II 
placed in him. See Ronald J. Rychlak, “The Enduring 
Legacy of John Paul II,” Catalyst, December 2010. 

8. On the repression of the Catholic Church in Romania, 
see Crozier at 101. 

9. Romanian history scholar Nicolae Dorel Ceuca, relying 
primarily upon the diplomatic archive of the Romanian 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, found that while Romania 
banished the Apostolic Nunciature early in the 1950s, 
by the 1960s, diplomats on both sides were trying to 
restore official connections. From the Vatican’s side, 
these discussions were mostly led by Cardinal Casaroli. 
See <>. 

0. No such loan was ever made. The Vatican archives that 
could confirm or disprove the Romanian request are 

sealed. The Vatican Secretariat of State reports that: 

it would seem extremely unlikely that Romania 
would have asked for a loan from the Vatiean. No 
relations existed between the government and the 
Vatiean after the expulsion of the Apostolie Nuneio 
in 1946 and the elosure of the Nuneiature in 1950. 
Furthermore sueh a petition would be ineonsistent 
espeeially when one eonsiders the severe perseeution 
that the Catholie Chureh, espeeially the Greek 
Catholie Chureh, endured during the Communist 

Letter to Ronald Rychlak from Monsignor Gabriele 
Caccia, Assessor, Vatican Secretariat of State, 
February 2, 2008. 

1. Freemantle at 106-107. See also George Weigel, All 
War, All the Time, First Things, April 201 1, at 32 (Two 
Lithuanian KGB agents studied at the Gregorian 
University and two others infiltrated Vatican meetings.) 

2. Koehler at 10. 

3. Not long after the release of Cornwell’s book. Hitler’s 
Pope, the Vatican issued a statement on Cornwell’s 
work in Rome. It denied Cornwell’s claim to have been 
the first person to have access to the archives that he 
used and denied his claim that he had worked for 
months on end in them. The Secretariat of State had 
authorized Cornwell to consult the archive of the 
section on Relations with States, which he did for some 

three weeks. The topic of his research was relations 
with Bavaria (1918-1921); Austria, Serbia, and 
Belgrade (1913-1915). Cornwell was neither the first 
nor the only one to consult the archives of those years. 
He had no access to the “closed period,” beginning in 
1922. Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Positio, 
appendix 25 at 265. When he was asked about these 
claims in Brill ’s Content magazine, Cornwell replied as 
follows: “Nowhere in the book do I claim that I spent 
months on end in the Secretariat of State archive. The 
quote is taken from a sub-editorial conflation in a 
newspaper article and was an error of strict fact that 
actually turns out to be essentially true.” Cornwell 
completely neglected to mention that the newspaper 
article was one that he had written about his bookl 
Moreover, he repeated the claim in a piece that he 
wrote about his book for Vanity Fair magazine. The 
“sub-editorial conflation” language was edited out of 
the Brill 's Content piece when it was published. 

4. Fr. Peter Gumpel, relator of Pius XITs sainthood cause, 
remembered a young German priest who was in Rome 
at the appropriate time. He drove a sports car that 
seemed incongruous with his status, and few people 
seemed to know his background. Fr. Gumpel also said, 
however, that he was unaware of anyone who managed 
to get into the archives and steal any documents. 

5. The KGB, like its Romanian counterpart, the 

Securitate, was divided into two separate and very 
different entities: the domestic political police and the 
foreign intelligence service. The domestic branch of the 
KGB was a public organization, with local branches, 
known to everybody and feared by everybody. The 
foreign intelligence service was an unlisted, ultrasecret 
institution known only to a very small number of high- 
ranking communist nomenklatura involved in political, 
economic or religious relations with the West. 

6. This is not to be confused with the respected Romanian 
historian Francis Pall. 

7. Viata Crestina (Christian Life), I/nr. 6 (328), p. 20; 
Il/nr. 7 (329). See also Glia, London, June 15, 1950); 
Aurel Sergiu Marinescu, “O contrbutie la istoria 
Exilului Romanesc ” (A contribution to the History of 
Romanian Exile), vol.VIII” Bucuresti, ed. Vremea, 
2008, pp. 87,91-92. 

8. William Totok, Episcopal, Hitler si Securitatea (The 
Bishop, Hitler and the Securitate), (Bucharest: Polirom, 

9. A Contribution to the History of Romanian Exile 
(Bucharest: Vremea, 2008), vol. 8:87. 

0. Remus Mercia Birtz Blog, 

1. Father Sergio Pagano, prefect of the Vatican Secret 
Archives, has explained that during the years Pacepa 
describes “the letters of Pius XII were no longer in the 

Vatican Secret Archives. The documents they were 
interested in were to be found in the archive of the 
Secretary of State.” Zenit News Service, Relator of 
Pius XIFs Case Is Wary of Report: Father Gumpel 
Urges Prudence Over Defector’s Tale, February 18, 
2007. Father Gumpel, relator of Pope Pius XIFs 
sainthood cause, speculated that Soviet spies, 
unfamiliar with how things work in the Vatican, might 
have confused “the Vatican Secret Archives with the 
Archive of the Secretary of State.” Ibid. 


1. German Wikipedia, Erwin Piscator, September 19, 
2009, <>. 

2. Karol Jozef Gajewski, “Winning the War over Pius 
XII,” Inside the Vatican, 

«http :// WWW. insidethevatican. com/ articles/ review- 

3. Leo Kerz, Brecht and Piscator, 20:3 Educational 
Theatre Journal 363 (October 1968). 

4. Willett at 41. 

5. Ibid at 131. 

6. Ibid at 132. 

7. Inostrannyy Otdel, or Foreign Department, which at 
that time was integrated into the Soviet political police. 

the NKVD {Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, 
People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs). 

8. Piscator, German Wikipedia, <>. 

9. Smith. 

0. The Proletarian Theatre: Its Fundamental Principles 
and Its Tasks (1920), quoted by Smith, page 8. 

1. Terence Smith, “Performance, Space and Technology, 
Stanford University Drama Department,” November 

2. Willett at 50-51. See also Smith at 6. 

3. Willett at 53. 

4. Ibid at 55. 

5. Ibid at 104. 

6. Ibid at 121 (quoting Franz Jung). 

7. Ibid at 75. 

8. Ibid at 96. 

9. Ibid at 121. 

0. Willett at 122, quoting the postscript to the Soviet 
edition of Piscator’s play Das Politische Theater 
(Moscow 1934). 

1 . Erwin Piscator, “The Theatre Can Belong to Our 
Century, in The Theory of the Modem Stage,” (Eric 
Bentley, ed. 1997) at 471-3. 

2. Willett at 122. 

3. Ibid at 123. 

4. Willett at 124. 

5. Ibid at 126. 

6. Quoted in Smith, page 9. 

7. La Vem J. Rippley, Brecht the Communist and 
America’s Drift from Capitalism 14:3 Twentieth 
Century Literature 143 (October 1968). 

8. Information on Erwin Piscator at Akademie der Kiinste, 
Berlin, September 19, 2009 

<http://www.adk. de/ de/ archiv/archivbestamd/ darstellen( 

9. Thomas at 165. 

0. “Revival in Manhattan,” Time, December 23, 1940. 

1. Willett at 165. 

2. Ibid (Wolf tells Piscator that the Party would want him 
to run a theater in Germany; “I know of no objection to 
you on the part of the Party.”) 

3. Piscator, German Wikipedia, September 19, 2009 

4. Leo Kerz, Brecht and Piscator, 20:3 Educational 
Theatre Journal 363, 368 (October 1968). 

5. Willett at 180. 

6. Biography of Erwin Piscator in German, from the 
Stiftung Archiv der Akademie der Kiinste, Berlin, 
September 19, 2009, published at 
<http://www.adk. de/ de/ archiv/archivbestand/ darstellend 


1. Pierre Joffroy, A Spy for God: The Ordeal of Kurt 
Gerstein, N. Denny translator (New York: Harcourt 
Brace, 1969). 

2. Judy Stone, Interview with Rolf Hochhuth, Ramparts, 
Spring 1964, reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 


3. Hochhuth (1964) at 331. 

4. Ward at 29, 34. 

5. Erwin Piscator, Introduction to The Deputy (Clara 
Mayer trans.) in The Storm over The Deputy at 15. 

6. From an entry on Wikipedia. 

7. Hinkle at 67. 

8. Hochhuth (1964) at 328. 

9. Ibid at 304. 

0. Character Assassination, America, March 7, 1964, 
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 39. 

1. Editorial: Character Assassination, America, March 7, 
1964, reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 39. 

2. Fisher at 11. 

3. Judy Stone interview, in The Storm over The Deputy at 


4. Friedrich Heer, The Need for Confession, 

Commonweal, February 20, 1964, in The Storm over 

The Deputy at 166. 

5. Judy Stone interview, in The Storm over The Deputy at 

6. Rychlak, Righteous Gentiles, at 181-92. 

7. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, The Timeless Christian 
191-93 (Franciscan Herald Press, 1969). 

8. Leva! at 5-6 (quoting Albert Wucher, “Der 
Stellvertreter und die historische Wirklichkeit,” in the 
Suddeutsche Zeitung, Munich April 19, 1963). 

9. Michael Feldkamp, Hochhuth Exposed, Association of 
Contemporary Church Historians, July/ August 2007 
(John Jay Hughes trans.). 

0. Ibid. 

1 . Who Brought Down Pius XII?: L ’Osservatore Director 
Blames Communists, Church Division, The Wanderer, 
June 25, 2009 (discussing Vian’s 2009 book. In Difesa 
di Pio XII: Le Ragioni della). 

2. Ibid. 

3. Conway (1973) at 147. 


1. See Reviews, XII:2 World Theatre 140 (Summer 1963) 
(“somewhere between a spoken report with scenes of 
great realism. . . and a fast paced discussion”). The 
review went on to note the difficulty of producing the 

play “from a text which if performed in total would 
have lasted six or seven hours.” Ibid\ Sidney F. 

Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage: A Look at 
the Major Productions of ‘The Deputy,’” 28:3 
Educational Theatre Journal 347, 353 (Oct., 1976) 
(“How then should we judge Hochhuth as a 
playwright? The formal shape of his script suggests that 
he wishes to be judged by traditional dramatic 
standards, and by these standards one cannot speak 
well of him”). 

2. Stephen Kinzer, “For a German Gadfly, a New Play, a 
New Furor,” New York Times, March 11, 1993. 

3. Kustow at 136 (noting that Le Monde newspaper 
thought that Semprum’s edit of the story was superior 
to Piscator’s). 

4. Gary Prevost, “Review: The Autobiography of 
Federico Sanchez and the Communist Underground in 
Spain by Jorge Semprun,” 75:3 The American Political 
Science Review 819 (Sep., 1981). 

5. See Kathleen A. Johnson, The Framing of History: 
Jorge Semprun ’s La Deuxieme Mort de Ramon 
Mercader, 20 French Forum 90 January, 1995. 

6. Kustow at 18-19, 24. 

7. Ibid at 25-26. 

8. Ibid at 87 (“In Moscow the box-office was mobbed, all 
tickets were sold in hours”). 

9. Ibid at 87. See also Peter Brook, The Empty Space 20- 
22 (New York: Athenaeum, 1982). The Kustow 
biography also contains a photograph (taken around 
1953) of Brook, his wife Natasha Parry, and Fidel 
Castro. A commentator from the era noted that 
“Brook’s work on plays by other authors, must, on the 
whole, be regarded as the most positive result of 
Brechtian influence on the art of stage directing in 
England.” Martin Esslin, Brecht and the English 
Theatre, 1 1:2 The Tulane Drama Review 63, 66 
(Winter 1966). Brecht, of course, was a noted 
communist playwright. 

0. Albert Hunt and Geoffrey Reeves, Peter Brook 104 
(Cambridge University Press, 1995). From 1737 until 
1968 the Lord Chamberlain licensed plays in London 
and certain other areas. This effectively made him the 
official censor of theatrical performances. See also 
Kustow at 131 (discussing one of Brook’s few failures 
on stage - a play that warned about “the West” using a 
highly intelligent robot for destructive purposes.) 

1. See Dan Isaac, “Theatre of Fact,” 15:3 The Drama 
Review: TDR 109 (Summer, 1971). Brook essentially 
used symbolic designs for his production. “The stage 
was kept bare, no backdrops were used. Each of the 
actors had an identical blue suit over which he put 
some distinguishing costume piece, such as a Nazi 
armband or a priest’s cassock. This design stressed the 

inter-changeability of oppressor and oppressed in the 
modem age.” Sidney F. Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for 
the Stage: A Look at the Major Productions of ‘The 
Deputy,’” 28:3 Educational Theatre Journal 347, 352 
(Oct., 1976). 

2. Kustow at 87. 

3. See Simon Tmssler, “Shakespeare: The Greatest Whore 
of Them All Peter Hall at Stratford 1960-1968,” 13:2 
The Drama Review 169 (Winter, 1968). See also 
LaVem J. Rippley, Brecht the Communist and 
America’s Drift from Capitalism 14:3 Twentieth 
Century Literature 143 (October 1968). 

4. St. Denis was no stranger to the use of media for 
political purposes. In World War II, he directed the 
BBC’s Radio Diffusion Frangaise (established by 
DeGaulle’s government in exile) under the pseudonym 
of Jacques Duchesne. 

5. Irving Wardle, “London’s Subsidized Companies,” 

1 1:2 The Tulane Drama Review 105, III (Winter 

6. Patterson at xi. 

7. Ossia Trilling, The New English Realism 7:2 The 
Tulane Drama Review 184, 190 (Winter 1962). 

8. Glenn Loney, “Theatre Abroad: Oh to Be in England: 

A London Theatre Album” 19:1 Educational Theatre 
Journal 87 (Special English-Irish Theatre Issue, March 


9. Ibid. 

0. In England, the title is usually translated as The 
Representative, but sometimes as The Vicar. The 
program from the original London production says: ‘Tt 
is not, as has been widely construed and rumoured, a 
gratuitous and vicious attack on the Catholic Church — 
almost every page proves this accusation to be absurd.” 
Director Clifford Williams included an essay in which 
he wrote: ‘T have examined all the facts which the play 
contains and I have found no instance of Hochhuth 
deliberately distorting verifiable information.” Pope 
Paul VFs defense of Pius XII was also reprinted 
therein. See Rychlak (2010) at 296. 

1. Michael Coveneny, “Obituary: Robert David 
MacDonald,” The Guardian, May 24, 2004. 

MacDonald adapted at least three of Hochhuth’ s plays: 
The Representative (or The Deputy), Soldiers, and 
Judith. David Irving’s web photo of Irving, Hochhuth, 
and MacDonald together. 

<http://www.fpp . CO .uk/Irving/photos/Hochhuth/image3 . 

2. See Thomas G. Gulick, “UNESCO, Where Culture 
Becomes Propaganda,” The Heritage Foundation 
Backgrounder #233, December 13, 1982; Hook at 447 
(contrasting a UNESCO seminar with a legitimate 
academic or scientific seminar). In the 1950s, two 
former UNESCO officials identified UNESCO’s 

ancestor as: “The Soviet All Union Society for Cultural 
Relations with Foreign Countries,” whose goals 
included “the world union of intellectual forces for the 
triumph of genuine world culture,” so as to inspire 
intellectuals to “fight the war danger [and] agitate for 
peace.” Walter H.C. Laves and Charles A. Thompson, 
UNESCO: Purpose, Progress, Prospects, (Indiana 
University Press, 1957). As early as 1952, the Knights 
of Columbus urged their fellow Americans to give a 
“close and careful scrutiny” to the operations of 
UNESCO. “Knights of the Church,” Time magazine, 
September 1, 1952; see William R. Kintner and Joseph 
Z. Komfeder, The New Frontier of War: Political 
Warfare Present and Future (Chicago: Henry Regnery 
Company, 1962). Years after MacDonald worked there, 
the KGB reportedly still had several agents on 
UNESCO’s payroll, at least one of whom was working 
as a translator. Steve Farrell, “Coalition or Bust! Virtue 
or Vice?,” Meridian Magazine (2002). The United 
States eventually withdrew from UNESCO over its 
perceived anti- West bias. 

3. Andrew and Mitrokhin at 466; Oleg Kalugin, 

Spymaster: My Thirty-Two Years in Intelligence and 
Espionage against the West (New York: Basic Books, 
2009) at 123, 192-93; Milton Rosenberg, An American 
Trapped in a Communist Paradise: An Historical 
Autobiography 45 (Moose Hide Books, 2003); “KGB: 
Russia’s Old Boychiks,” Time, February 6, 1978. 

4. “Piscator had the courage to tackle this difficult subject 
from a text which if performed in total would have 
lasted six or seven hours.” XII World Theatre 140 
(Summer 1963) (calling the play “somewhere between 
a spoken report with scenes of great realism. . . and a 
fastly paced discussion”). 

5. Michael Coveneny, “Obituary: Robert David 
MacDonald,” The Guardian, May 24, 2004. 

6. In 1971, MacDonald became a codirector of the 
Citizen ’s Theatre in Glasgow, Scotland. He ran this 
theater in much the same way Piscator operated his 
Freie Volksbilhne. Plays were often political, and 
tickets were priced so that the workers could attend. 
“For years, a sign declaring “All seats 5 Op” blazed over 
what was then a slum area:” Obituary: Robert David 
MacDonald, The Daily Telegraph, May 21, 2004. See 
Interview: The Citizens Company in Glasgow: ‘Four 
Hundred Miles from Civilization, ”5:1 Performing Arts 
Journal 50 (1980) (“Our theatre is actually socialist 
theatre in the sense that if s the only theatre in Britain 
which has a seat price that enables absolutely anybody 
to come in. And I think that’s a kind of practical 
socialism.”) While some critics considered the Citizen ’s 
Theatre exciting and influential, “others disapproved of 
what they saw as high camp, mannered performances 
and a preference for Left-wing European dramatists.” 
The Daily Telegraph, May 21, 2004. 

7. Douglas Chalmers, Communist Party of Great Britain: 
Scottish Committee Archive 1960s to 1990s, Glasgow 
Caledonian University Archives, 

8. LaVem J. Rippley, Brecht the Communist and 
America’s Drift from Capitalism 14:3 Twentieth 
Century Literature 143 (October 1968). 

9. Patterson at 1. Joan Littlewood and Arnold Wesker 
were among those most openly involved in class 
struggle. See “Interview: The Citizens Company in 
Glasgow: ‘Four Hundred Miles from Civilization,”’ 5:1 
V erf orming Arts Journal 50 (1980) (interview with 
Robert David MacDonald, Philip Prowse, and Giles 
Havergal) (“A lot of British theatre is socialist and 
political, or at least the playwrights speak as if they 
write in those terms.”). 

0. Theodore Shank, “Political Theatre in England,” 2:3 
Performing Arts Journal 48 (Winter 1978). See also 
Larraine Nicholas, “Fellow Travellers: Dance and 
British Cold War Politics in the Early 1950s,” 19:2 
Dance Research: The Journal of the Society for Dance 
Research 83, 85 (Winter 2001). 

1. See C. Chambers (2004) at 233, n. 17. 

2. Like Piscator, he also had a program supplement 
discussing the charges against Pius XII. 

3. Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage” at 347, 351- 
52. (“Reviewers generally thought that this 

concentration on the documents worked against the 

4. “Obituary: Clifford Williams, Theatre director with 
comedic talent and an awesome staging flair,” The 
Independent, August 23, 2005. 

5. Phyllis Hartnoll and Peter Found, Theatre Workshop, in 
The Concise Oxford Companion to the Theatre (1996). 
It had grown out of a group known as “The Red 
Megaphone” which had an overtly political manifesto. 
Dominic Shellard, British Theatre Since the War 60-61 
(Yale University Press, 1999). The Theatre Workshop 
was an “acknowledged influence” on Peter Hall (and 
thus the Royal Shakespeare Company). C. Chambers at 
12. Hall even invited Littlewood to direct for the 
company. Ibid. At about this same time, he did hire 
John Bury away from the Theatre Workshop to be the 
Royal Shakespeare Company’s main designer. Ibid at 
34-35; Martin Esslin, “Brecht and the English Theatre,” 
1 1:2 The Tulane Drama Review 63, 65 (Winter 1966). 

6. Along with Peter Brook, Littlewood was among the 
most important theatrical personalities in the UK at this 
time. Shortly before her death in 2002, she said: “Eve 
always been a communist.” “Obituary: Joan 
Littlewood,” The Daily Telegraph, September 26, 


7. Jerry Tallmer, You Can ’t Print That! (but he did, he 
does). Thrive, vol. 1: 9, January 1 -31, 2006. See 

Lowry at 1 (“Communism - a New Religion”); ibid at 
146 (more on communism as a religion); John C. 
Bennett, The Demand for Freedom and Justice in the 
Contemporary World Revolution, in Religion and 
Culture, at 330 (same). 

8. Rolf Hochhuth, “The Berlin Antigone,” Evergreen 
Review, May 1964 at 70. 

9. Evergreen Review, August-September 1964, at 97. 

0. According to the book, in June 1942, 17-year-old 
Rudolf Vrba was shipped to Auschwitz. Fighting 
against starvation, typhus, and almost unbelievable 
brutality, he kept a complete record of Nazi horrors. 
Finally he managed to escape and bring his message to 
the outside world. See Rudolf Vrba & Alan Bestic, / 
Cannot Forgive : The Amazing True Story of a 17 Year 
Old Jewish Boy Who Defied the Germans at Auschwitz 
and Escaped to Alert the World to the Nazi Horror 
Camps! (New York: Bantam Books, 1964). Apparently 
Vrba performed poorly under cross examination at a 
Canadian trial over Holocaust denial, and he admitted 
that he had taken “artistic license.” Queen v. Zilndel, 2 
S.C.R. 731 (1992). He is now often cited by Holocaust 
deniers as an example of how people make things up 
about the Holocaust. 

1 . She wrote several plays he produced, including The 
Children ’s Hour (1934), The Little Foxes (1939), and 
Watch on the Rhine (1941). See Paul Kengor, Dupes: 

How America ’s Adversaries Have Manipulated 
Progressives for a Century (Wilmington: ISI Books, 
2010) at 222. 

2. Time, July 7, 1947. 

3. Time, September 16, 1946. 

4. Time, July 7, 1947. 

5. New York Times, October 17, 1998, p. A-15. Regarding 
outbursts during productions, see Kustow at 136. 

6. John Simon, “The Deputy and Its Metamorphoses,” 

The Nation, March 16, 1964, reprinted in The Storm 
over The Deputy at 109, 115. Robert Brustein, writing 
in The New Republic explained: “The New York 
production of his play. . . preserves no integrity at all, 
and I have confined my discussion to the printed text 
because the Broadway performance is beneath 
discussion. Robert Brustein, “History as Drama,” The 
New Republic, March 14, 1964, reprinted in The Storm 
over The Deputy at 23. 

7. David Horowitz, “World Shares Guilt in Jews’ 
Murder,” Ohio Jewish Chronicle, March 20, 1964. 

8. David Horowitz, who grew up in New York City as the 
son of two lifelong communists, was a founding 
member of the New Left. During the 1960s he was not 
at Ramparts until after the controversy surrounding The 
Deputy. See David Horowitz, Radical Son (New York: 
The Free Press, 1997). Lionel Abel, who wrote about 

the play in Dissent magazine (Spring 1964), is usually 
considered a Trotskyite. Alan Wald, “Farrell and 
Trotskyism” 22:1 Twentieth Century Literature 90, 93 
(Feb. 1976); John F. Diggins, “Four Theories in Search 
of a Reality: James Burnham, Soviet Communism, and 
the Cold War” 70:2 The American Political Science 
Review 492 (June 1976). See Lionel Abel, “Stalin’s 
Advocate,” 2 Politics 146 (May 1945). 

9. See Rychlak (2010) at 302-3. 

0. Tevi Troy, Book review. The Weekly Standard, March 
8, 1999 (reviewing Max Terser.- Pilgrim in the 
Promised Land, by Sanford Lakoff, University of 
Chicago Press, 1998). 

1 . Mona Charen, Useful Idiots - How Liberals Got It 
Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America 89 
(Regnery, 2003). 

2. New York Post, October 18, 1963. 

3. Gary Dorrien, “Michael Harrington: Socialist to the 
End,” Christian Century, October 11, 2000 at 1002. 

4. George Packer, “Interesting Times: Democratic 
Socialism Revisited,” The New Yorker, March 6, 2009, 

5. Lauren Weiner, “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?,” 
First Things, January 2010, at 29, 30 (referring to Pete 
Seeger writing in the Daily Worker under an alias). 

6. Carl Edmund Rollyson & Lisa Olson Paddock, Susan 
Sontag: The Making of an Icon, (New York: W. W. 
Norton & Co., 2000), 130. 

7. Susan Sontag, “All the World’s a Stage,” Book World, 
March 1, 1964, reprinted in The Deputy Reader at 222. 

8. Franklin Foer, “Susan Superstar,” New York Magazine, 
Jan 7, 2005 (“Sontag — ^with her championing of 
European modernism, her unabashed intellectuality, 
and her left-wing ideological commitments. . ..”). 

9. Guy Scarpetta, Susan Sontag: Dissidence as Seen from 
the USA, 76 Tel Quel 28 (Summer 1978), reprinted in 
Conversations with Susan Sontag (Susan Sontag & 
Leland A. Poague, ed.. University Press of Mississippi, 

0. See Ewart Turner, “No Letup for Der Stellvertreter,” in 
The Deputy Reader at 1 84. 

1. Fritz J. Raddatz, Karl Marx. A Political Biography 
(Little, Brown and Company, 1978). 

2. The Marx-Engels Correspondence: The Personal 
Letters, 1844-77 (Fritz J. Raddatz, ed. Little-hampton 
Book Services Ltd. 1981). 

3. German Wikipedia, Fritz J. Raddatz, June 14. 201 1 

4. Patrick Sullivan, Author Eric Bentley still shaping 
theater, Metro Active, September 24, 1998 
<www.metroacti ve .com/ papers/ sonoma/09 . 24 . 9 8/bentle 


5. Eric Bentley, Bentley on Brecht (Northwestern 
University Press, 2^^ ed. 2007). He wrote several other 
books on communist subjects, including: Bernard 
Shaw: A Reconsideration (1947); Brecht Commentaries 
(1981); and Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts from 
Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities, 1938-1968 

6. See Daniel Robert Epstein, Costa-Gavras Interview, 
UGO Online, 

(‘T saw the play back in 1964 in Paris. My scriptwriter, 
Jorge Semprun, wrote an adaptation back then. It was 
the play to see back then, and it was a huge 
controversy. I wanted to make the film in the 1970s, 
but the rights were taken.”) See Rychlak, “The Church 
and the Holocaust,” The Wall Street Journal (Europe), 
March 28, 2002 (reviewing v4me^). 

7. “Gavras doesn’t march behind the banner of political 
cinema. All cinema is political, he says, even action 
movies showing ‘heroes saving the Earth only with a 
gun’.” Maya Jaggi, “French resistance: Costa Gavras,” 
The Guardian, April 4, 2009. “‘My mother used to say 
stay away from politics, because my father went to 
prison. But we can’t not be involved. By not taking a 
position, you take a position.’” Ibid. 


1. 1. F. Stone, “What Some People Have Forgotten About 
God’s ‘Deputy,’”/. F. Stone’s Weekly, March 9, 1964, 
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy, 234-35. 

2. 1. F. Stone, “Pius XIFs Fear of Hitler,” /. F. Stone’s 
Weekly, November 1964. 

3. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, at 146-152. 

4. Romerstein and Breindel at 434-439. 

5. Judy Stone, “Interview with Rolf Hochhuth,” 
Ramparts, Spring 1964, reprinted in The Storm over 
The Deputy, 42. 

6. For instance, it talks about the Dominicans petitioning 
the pope in 1287, resulting in an encyclical that led to 
arrests, looting of Jewish wealth, and preparation of the 
Jews for deportation. Hermann Sinsheimer, Shylock: 
The History of a Character 38 (New York: Benjamin 
Blom, Inc., 1947, reprinted 1963). Similarly, it argues 
that “Christians of the Middle Ages [were] habitual 
persecutors of unprotected people” and that Pope Leo 
the Great (444-61) banned money lending. Ibid at \2\. 

7. In June 1964, George L. Mosse wrote a piece on The 
Deputy for an influential left-wing magazine. The 
Progressive. That periodical opposed the growth of the 
U.S. military, opposed the United Nations police action 
to prevent a communist takeover of Korea, and 

opposed U.S. intervention to prevent a communist 
takeover in South Vietnam. In 1954, it published a 
huge expose of McCarthyism, and it was sympathetic 
to the revolutionary dictatorship of Marxist Fidel 
Castro, who seized power in Cuba in 1959. All of these 
are defensible positions, but they also indicate at least 
the possibility of Soviet influence. 

8. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 226. 

9. Haynes and Klehr, Verona at 220-221. 

0. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield at 

1 . Ibid. 

2. Pacepa, Programmed to Kill, passim. 

3. Mark Lane, the author of Rush to Judgment and A 
Citizen ’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies to the Defenders 
of the Warren Report, helped New Orleans district 
attorney Jim Garrison arrest a local man (Clay Shaw), 
whom Garrison accused of conspiring with elements of 
U.S. intelligence to murder Kennedy in order to stop 
his efforts to end the Cold War. Garrison’s On the Trail 
of the Assassin inspired Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. 
Soviet documents from the Mitrokhin Archive later 
revealed that Lane received funding from the KGB. 

4. Journalists were very important to the Soviet’s efforts. 

The KGB recruited journalists in part for their access 
to inside information and sources on politics and 

policy, insights into personalities, and eonfidential 
and non-publie information that never made it into 
published stories. Certain journalistie working habits 
also lent themselves to intelligenee tasks. By 
profession, journalists ask questions and probe; what 
might seem intrusive or suspeet if done by anyone 
else is their normal modus operandi. Consequently, 
the KGB often used journalists as talent spotters for 
persons who did have aeeess to sensitive information, 
and made use of them to gather baekground 
information that would help in evaluating eandidates 
for reeruitment. ... There was also mueh less risk that 
a journalist having eontaet with a government offieial 
or engineer would attraet the attention of seeurity 
offieials than would a KGB offieer under Soviet 
diplomatie eover. And even if seeurity offieials did 
notiee sueh a meeting, it would be mueh easier to 
provide a benign explanation for eontaet with a pesky 
Ameriean journalist than with a Soviet diplomat. 

Harvey Klehr; John Earl Haynes, and Alexander 
Vassiliev, /. F. Stone, Soviet Agent — Case Closed, 
Commentary (May 2009). Perhaps most importantly, 
“the KGB could use journalists for ‘active measures’ — 
the planting of a story in the press or giving a slant to a 
story that served KGB goals.” Ibid. See also John Earl 
Haynes and Harvey Klehr, “Spies Among Us,”, June 19, 2009 (“Journalists 
were particularly well- suited for agency because many 
of the tasks they were asked to carry out — providing 

inside information, serving as couriers, talent- spotters, 
and checking on the background of potential sources — 
were, or could be made to seem, a normal part of their 
everyday work”). 

5. Kalugin (1994) at 53. 

6. Ibid (discussing racial “trouble” in the United States). 
This is very close to what Ramparts editor Warren 
Hinkle did when he invited numerous publications to a 
press conference/party in support of The Deputy. See 
Rychlak (2010) at 301-02. 

7. Weiner, “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?,” at 29, 30 
(quoting folk singer Dave Van Ronk). See also Kengor. 

8. Weiner, Where Have All the Lefties Gone? at 54. 

9. Ibid at 53. When Soviet handlers controlled American 
communists, the Americans were at the beck and call of 
their handlers. See Miller at 16. 

0. “Not Only the Deputy,” The Minority of One, April 
1964; M.S. Arnoni, American Dialog, July- August, 

1. “Not Only the Deputy,” The Minority of One, April 

2. Ibid. 

3. Robert Gorham Davis & George N. Shuster, “Of Gross 
Ends and a Man’s Choice,” New York Times Book 
Review, March 1, 1964. 

4. “Obituary: Robert Gorham Davis,” New York Times, 

July 17, 1998. See also “Obituary: Hope Hale Davis, 
100; Author, Writing Teacher, Feminist and 
Communist,” Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2004 
(obituary of Davis’s widow). 

5. Cooney at 282. He said that the play had been written 
to “drive a wedge between Christians and Jews.” Ibid. 

6. Hinkle at 58. 

7. Ibid at 58; Editor's Mailbag, Ohio Jewish Chronicle, 
March 20, 1964 (discussing Jews who protest The 
Deputy). See Israelis Defend Name of Pope Pius XII, 
Jewish Chronicle, October 11, 1963 (discussing the 
Jewish reaction to the play’s opening in London). See 
Trude Weiss-Ros-marin, Second Thoughts on '‘The 
Deputy, ” Ramparts, Summer 1964 at 95 (emphasis in 
original) (detailing how the play insulted Jews). As one 
of the play’s most important early supporters 
explained: “The serious rejoinders to Hochhuth’s 
charges against the Pope were handled by the Jews, 
which was the reason for the surprising defense of Pius 
XII by B’nai B’rith.” Hinkle at 58. See also Alfred 
Kazin, The Vicar of Christ, The New York Review of 
Books, March 19, 1964, reprinted in The Storm over 
the Deputy at 102, 105. 

8. He apparently was offended in late 1963 by some 
Jesuits who agreed to write articles responding to 
criticisms of the Church. After seeing the criticisms, 
they backed out of their commitment, leaving Ramparts 

without sufficient content for the next issue. Ramparts 
editor Warren Hinkle explained: “The holy beating 
these holy men gave Ed Keating was to prove pivotal in 
the leftward development of Ramparts ^ Bums at 321. 

9. Hinkle at 50-51. 

0. Bums at 321. 

1. Hinkle at 50-51. 

2. Edward M. Keating, “The Voice of Pius Was Silent,” 
This World, March 1, 1964; Edward M. Keating & 
Tmde Weiss-Rosmarin, “Book Reviews,” Ramparts, 
Summer 1964; Edward M. Keating, “Book Review,” 
San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 1964. See also 
Edward Keating, The Scandal of Silence: A Layman ’s 
Powerful Critique of the Catholic Church in America 

3. “French Cardinal Condemned Nazis,” New York Times, 
Feb. 26, 1964, p.41. 

4. Tisserant, Interview, Informations Catholiques, April 
15, 1964. See also O’Carroll at 14, 69. 

5. According to at least one account. Ramparts' reporting 
led to “the biggest security leak of the Cold War.” Sol 
Stem, “The Ramparts I Watched: Our storied radical 
magazine did transform the nation — for the worse,” 

City Journal (Winter 2010). 

6. Bennett’s most important publication at that time was 
the book, Christianity and Communism Today (1948, 

rev. 1960). He was known for supporting civil rights, 
protesting the Vietnam War, opposing nuclear 
weapons, and (later) advocating for gay and lesbian 
rights. In 1961, Time magazine wrote: “Dr. Bennett has 
long warned Christians against thinking that God is 
automatically on the side of the West.” “Whose Side is 
God On?,” Time, Nov. 10, 1961. The article went on to 
quote him: 

The very atheism of eommunism is a judgment upon 
the ehurehes, whieh for so long were uneoneemed 
about the vietims of the Industrial Revolution and 
early eapitalism and whieh have usually been 
ornaments of the status quo, no matter how unjust it 
has been. The temptation to turn the eold war into a 
holy erusade is ever with us. . . . 

7. Zahn was a conscientious objector to World War II and 
cofounder of Pax Christ! USA. His most famous work 
at the time was German Catholics and Hitler’s War 
(1962). That book led to some serious clashes with 
Catholic leaders and his departure from (the Jesuit) 
Loyola University. Griffin, a convert to Catholicism, 
was best known for his work on racial strife in the 
United States and his book Black Like Me (concerning 
his trip through southern states disguised as an African- 

8. This was a typical approach of the KGB, which would 
place stories in small papers and journals, hoping that 

other outlets would pick them up. See Yury B. Shvets, 
Washington Station: My Life as a KGB Spy in America 
13, 39 (Simon & Schuster, 1994); Kalugin (1994) at 53. 

9. Bums at 321. 

0. “A Bomb in Every Issue,” Time, January 6, 1967. 

1 . Ibid. 

2. Sol Stem, “The Ramparts I Watched: Our storied 
radical magazine did transform the nation — for the 
worse,” City Journal (Winter 2010). 

3. Ibid. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Bums at 321. 

7. David Horowitz, “Spy Stories: The Wen Ho Lee 
Cover-Up,”, October 3, 2000. 

8. Bums at 321. See S. Steven Powell, Covert Cadre: 
Inside the Insitute for Policy Studies (Green Hill 
Publishers, 1987). 

9. Memo to the White House re Ramparts, case no. EO- 
1996-00609, pub. date 5/19/1966; release date 

1 1/4/1997 (noting dramatic expansion and communist 
ties of key personnel). Memorandum to Bill Moyers, 
White House from Richard Helms, DD/CIA (Subject 
Del), case no. EO-2004-00392, pub. date 5/19/1966; 
release date 5/17/2004 (same document). 


1. See Edgar Alexander, “Rolf Hochhuth: Equivocal 
Deputy, Study of the anti-Semitic and Anti-Catholic 
mental baggage of a playwright,” America, October 12, 

2. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, “Second Thoughts on The 
Deputy,” Ramparts (Summer 1964) at 95. 

3. Ibid. 

4. “Pius XII & The Jews,” Time, November I, 1963. 

5. Interview with Rolf Hochhuth, Ramparts (Spring 1964), 
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 42. 

6. Ward at 37. 

7. John Simon, “The Deputy and Its Metamorphoses,” 

The Nation, March 16, 1964, reprinted in The Storm 
over The Deputy at 109, 1 15. 

8. Hinkle at 58. 

9. Weiss-Rosmarin at 95. 

0. Hinkle at 58. 

1. Among Preminger’s many films are Exodus (1960), 
dealing with the establishment of the modem state of 
Israel, and The Cardinal (1963), loosely based on 
Austrian Cardinal Innitzer. 

2. Robert C. Doty, “‘The Deputy’ is here,” New York 
Times, Febmary 23, 1964. 

3. Ibid at 49. 

4. Ibid at 43. 

5. Judy Stone interview, in The Storm over The Deputy, 

6. Ibid at 64-65. 

7. Ferencz later became a significant promoter of the 
International Criminal Court. One of the co-authors of 
this book (Rychlak) met him several times at the 
United Nations while serving as a delegate of the Holy 
See to meetings on the ICC. 

8. Matthew Brzezinski, “Giving Hitler Hell,” Washington 
Post, July 24, 2005. 

9. See Edward Crankshaw, Khrushchev: A Career (New 
York: Viking, 1966) at 154 (“Khrushchev showed 
himself to be a fairly crude anti-Semite in later years.”) 

0. For details see Radu loanid. The Ransom of the Jews: 
The Story of Extraordinary Secret Bargain between 
Romania and Israel (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2005), with 
an afterword by Pacepa. 

1 . The Case of the Anti-Soviet Block of Rights and 
Troskyites, 369-430 Red Star Press (1937). 

2. Will Englund, “Ex-Soviet Scientist Says Gorbachev’s 
Regime Created New Nerve Gas in ‘91,” Baltimore 
Sun, September 16, 1992. 

3. J. Michael Waller, “Post-Soviet Sakharov: Renewed 
Persecution of Dissident Scientists and the American 

Response,” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post- 
Soviet Democratization, vol. 2, no. 1 (1994). 

4. Lev Fyodorov, “KGB-Led Chemical Weapons Cover- 
Up?,” Crossroads: A Monitor of Post-Soviet Reform, 
(April 15, 1993) at 4. 


1. Solomon Volkov and Dmitri Shostakovich, Testimony: 
The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich (Limelight, 2004) 
at XXV. 

2. Ibid at xxx, 95 (“An artist whose portrait did not 
resemble the leader disappeared forever. So did the 
writer who uses ‘crude words.’”). 

3. Moshe Dector, The Profile of Communism, A Fact-by- 
F act Primer {CoWxQx^odks, 1961) at 121. 

4. M. Swift at 92. 

5. Volkov and Shostakovich at xxx-xxxi. 

6. M. Swift at 92. 

7. Ibid quoting N. Vladimirov, Cultural Facilities in the 
USSR, (Moscow, n.d.) p. 26. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid at 93. Trade associations were employed to ensure 
that the artists complied with the state’s demands. 

The Russian Association of Proletarian Writers 

(1920-1932) and its “musical” offshoot, the Russian 
Association of Proletarian Musicians (1923-1932), 
arose as instruments of the cultural policies of the 
Party. The influence of these unions was almost 
overwhelming at the end of the 1920s and into the 
early 1930s. They often turned out to be greater 
royalists than the king, and were disbanded by Stalin 
when he decided that the organizations had served 
their function. 

Volkov and Shostakovich at 1 12 (footnote). 

0. M. Swift at 198. 

1. Volkov and Shostakovich at 255 (suggesting that many 
of them had painted portraits of Stalin that displeased 
the leader). 

2. M. Swift at 198. 

3. Leon Harris, The Moscow Circus School 4-5 
(Kingsport Press, 1970). The nation’s foremost 
magician, E.F. Kio, was also praised for having 
rejected the bourgeois approach taken by earlier 
magicians. Y. Dmitriyev, Kio and His Predecessors in 
The Soviet Circus: A Collection of Articles (Moscow: 
Progress Publishers, 1967). 

4. M. Swift at 101. 

5. Volkov and Shostakovich at 146. 

6. Ibid at 270. 

7. Ibid at 80 (footnote) & 95 (Lenin called opera a “piece 
of purely upper-class culture.”) 

8. Ibid at \ \ A, 127 (“Approving programs and lists was a 
hobby of his.”) 

9. Ibid at 64. Stalin also banned Shakespeare. Ibid at 87. 

0. Ibid at 3-4 (footnote). 

1. Ibid at 190. This became a problem when one of the 
nation’s highest-ranking churchmen, the Metropolitan 
of Moscow, planned to give a talk on the radio. 

The Metropolitan arrived at the radio station and 
walked straight up to the mierophone. They grabbed 
him by the sleeve and pulled him away. “Your 
Eminenee, where’s the text of the speeeh?” The 
Metropolitan was taken abaek. “What speeeh?” They 
began explaining that they meant the. . .well, not the 
speeeh, but the whatever-you-eall-it. ... In other 
words, if the Metropolitan was planning to speak 
now, where was the approved and signed text? 

The Metropolitan, they say, took umbrage and stated 
that he never read his sermons from a pieee of paper. 

This was a seandal; what to do? They asked the 
Metropolitan to wait a bit and rushed to eall the 
bosses, but no one wanted the responsibility. 

Ibid at \9\. Eventually, the question made its way up 
all the way to Stalin. He decided to let the 
Metropolitan speak unhindered. 

2. M. Swift at 101. 

3. Ibid at 149. 

4. Ibid at 162-63. 

5. Volkov and Shostakovich at xxxvi. 

6. Niels C. Nielsen, Solzhenitsyn 's Religion (Nelson, 
1975) at 54. 

7. Volkov and Shostakovich (photo page facing page 87). 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid at 128. 

0. See Ibid at xxxiii. 

1. Ibid at 128 (Stalin “livid” about being left out of film), 

Stalin loved the movies. It didn’t take long for Stalin 
to see every Soviet film made; Stalin had the 
following aesthetie theory. Of all the pietures 
produeed, only a small fraetion was any good, and 
even fewer were masterpieees, beeause only a few 
people were eapable of making masterpieees. Stalin 
determined who eould ereate a masterpieee and who 
eouldn’t, and then he deeided that bad films weren’t 
needed, nor were the good ones. He needed only 
masterpieees. If the produetion of ears and airplanes 
eould be planned, then why not plan the produetion 
job masterpieees? It’s no more eomplieated, 
partieularly if you’re dealing with film, sinee film is 
also an industry. 

Ibid at 249. 

2. Ibid at 249-50. 

3. Lauren Weiner, “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?,” 
First Things, January 2010, at 29, 30 (mentioning Pete 
Seeger, Lee Hays, Millard Lampell, Burl Ives, Josh 
White, Saul Aarons, Bemie Asbel, Will Geer, and 
Woody Guthrie). 

4. Ibid. 

5. Volkov and Shostakovich at 214-15. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid at 215, 316. 

9. Ibid at 209. Stalin appreciated the power of the arts to 
move people, but he did not really appreciate the talent 
of the artists. One composer explained: “Stalin used to 
call all of us cogs. One cog does not differ from 
another, and cogs can easily replace one another.” Ibid 
atlll', see Ibid at 2\5-\6. That mindset is why the 
Kremlin had little concern about falsifying writings, be 
they poems, folk songs, or plays. 

0. M. Swift at 256-57. 

1. Ibid at 289-90. 

2. Ibid at 29\. There were numerous Soviet artists who 
regarded the: 

interference of the Party and State in their art as a 
colossal nuisance, and who would like nothing more 
than to be allowed simply to be artists. However, the 
Soviet performer is not left alone. Once a Soviet 

ballet artist joins a theatrical collective, his in-service 
ideological training continues through the theatrical 
Komsomol or Party unit if he is a member. His 
mentality is further formed by lectures sponsored by 
the All-Russian Theatrical Society, by Rabis, or 
simply by the talks and discussions which take place 
in every theatre. 

Ibid at 29\. 

3. Dector, Profile of Communism at 133. 

4. M. Swift at 292. 


1. M. Swift at 293. 

2. David Irving Propagandists ’ Poster Boy, Anti- 
Defamation League (2001) <>. 

3. Gordon Craig, The Germans 72 (New York: G.P. 
Putnam’s Sons, 1982). 

4. Ibid at 72. 

5. Richard Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow 166 (New York: 
Pantheon Books, 1989). 

6. D.D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: 
W.W. Norton, 2001), 46. 

7. Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust 111 (New 
York: Free Press, 1993). 

8. Ibid at 23 1 . 

9. English translation of the Soviet Note of April 25, 

1943, severing unilaterally Soviet-Polish diplomatic 
relations, published online by the Polish government on 
December 19, 2005. 

0. Time, May 10, 1968. 

1. Declassified Secret Memorandum: Soldiers, to Mr. 

John Peck & Sir E. Peck from J.E. Jackson, January 10, 
1969 (‘Soldiers’ - IRD Contribution) (citing the 
October 22, 1967, edition of Zycie Literackie (Literary 
Life) and an article by Olgierd Terlrcki), reprinted in 
Rychlak (2010) at 419. 

2. Rainer Taeni, Modern German Authors, RolfHochhuth 
(London: Oswald Wolff, 1977) at 140, 149. Prchal 
“was vindicated in court and damages were awarded.” 
David Frost, An Autobiography (New York: 
HarperCohins, 1993) at 416. For details on the verdict 
against Hochhuth, see “Pilot of General Sikorski’s 
Aircraft Claims Libel Damages from German 
Playwright,” The Times of London, May 3, 1972, at 3; 
“£50,000 Award to General Sikorski’s Pilot,” The 
Times of London, May 4, 1972, at 1; “$130,000 
Awarded to Pilot for Libel in Hochhuth Play,” New 
York Times, May 4, 1972, at 48. Thompson at 17-18. 

3. Martin Esslin, Rolf Hochhuth, in Justin Wintle, Makers 
of Modern Culture 233 (New York: Facts on File, 

4. Thompson at 112. David Irving sued Thompson over 

the book, arguing that the book was libelous, but the 
publisher defended by asserting that the allegations 
were true. Witnesses signed off on their statements, and 
Irving dropped the case. He eventually had to pay the 
defendants’ costs. He did, however, send an unsigned 
note out to British newspapers trying to impugn 
Thompson’s character. When asked by the press, he 
admitted that he had written it and noted that his 
initials, “djci,” were at the bottom of the note. Susan 
Barnes, “David Irving: Portrait of a Gentleman,” The 
Sunday Times Supplement, London, September 6, 1970. 

5. As a biographer wrote, he “is not slow to come to 
conclusions, which he does without fear or favour.” 
Taeni at 19. 

6. Carlos Thompson, an Argentine-bom German writer 
and actor, made his first film at age 16. In the 1950s, he 
was the epitome of the Latin lover. Among his movies 
were: Valley of the Kings, starring Yvonne de Carlo, 
and The Flame and the Flesh, in which he played 
opposite Lana Turner. He also starred in El Tunel, 
based on the novel by the noted Argentine writer 
Ernesto Sabato. In 1957, he married writer Lilli Palmer, 
the former wife of actor Rex Harrison. Thompson said 
that the book “imposed itself’ upon him and that 
Hochhuth “has only himself to blame for it.” 

7. Thompson at 266. Whether it is tmly “one big step 
further” is a matter of debate. 

8. Ibid at 134 (statement of Prince Lubomirski). 

9. Ibid at 149. See Harry de Quetteville, “Did British 

double agent Kim Philby murder Polish war hero 
General Sikorski?,” Telegraph, July 1, 2008. 

0. Thompson at 192. 

1. Ibid at 193. 

2. Ibid at 133 (statement of General Marian Kukiel). 
Thompson reported that one of Hochhuth’s main 
shortcomings was that he was so busy ‘knowing’ that 
he did not have the time or the energy to travel a bit 
and find out what was really what. Ibid at 125. 
Thompson continues: All humour aside, this symptom 
promised anything but laughs. Colonel John 
Codrington of the British Intelligence said: 

Hochhuth says that Intelligence killed Sikorski. Well 
if that is the case, then you are talking to the man who 
would have done the job. I was Assistant Chief of 
Staff to Governor Mason Macfarlane. I was in charge 
of Military Intelligence. I repeat, if we had arranged 
to kill Sikorski, I would have been the one to do it. 

Ibid at 287. Codrington said: Hochhuth simply doesn’t 
know what he is talking about. Ibid at 278. 

3. Ibid at 95. 

4. Ibid at 100. 

5. Ibid at 101. 

6. Ibid at 130. When asked about Hochhuth’s claims that 

witnesses were faking amnesia, Kukiel called it a silly 
invention. He added: I am sorry that such a good writer 
as David Irving should allow himself to be dragged into 
Hochhuth’s theory.) 

7. Ibid at 213. 

8. Ibid at 214. 

9. Time, May 10, 1968. 

0. Prof. Dr. Wolfram Wette, “Der Fall Filbinger” (The 
Filbinger Case), lecture on September 14, 2003, 

1. German Wikipedia, Rolf Hochhuth, 

2. David Irving, Confidential Draft of Memoirs, 156 
<http://www.fpp . CO .uk/books/memoirs/prison_ 1 .html>. 

3. Ibid at 156. 

4. As Thompson related to one of the witnesses he 

Hochhuth’s obsession is that both Irving and myself 
will be killed any day now by a seeret organization 
whieh he ealls The Old Firm, whieh is run, so he told 
me in Zurieh, by a retired British General. In faet, 
he’s said to me that Sikorski’s murderers are “all still 
aetive” and bumping off people with taxis in the 
streets of London, or pushing them under trams and 

Thompson at 90. Hochhuth also feared that the British 

were spying on him. Ibid at 92. 

5. When Thompson decided to do further investigation 
that might reveal Hochhuth’s fabrications, Hochhuth 
called Thompson’s wife and said that Thompson’s life 
was in danger. Ibid a/" 77, 85-86. Thompson did not 
know whether Hochhuth believed the threat was real or 
it was just a ploy designed to stop him from carrying 
out further investigation. 

6. T. Feitknecht, K. Liissi, Ein Spannungsreiches 
Vierteljahrhundert: Der Briejwechsel Rolf 
Hochhuth/Golo Mann (German book collecting 
correspondence between Hochhuth and Mann). 


1. See Rychlak (2010) at 272-73 (transcript of Wolff s 

2. See generally Dan Kurzman, A Special Mission: 

Hitler ’s Secret Plot to Seize the Vatican and Kidnap 
Pope Pius XII (Perseus Book Group, 2007); Rychlak, 
Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2000) at 265 (quoting 
Wolffs testimony on the subject). 

3. While visiting Rome in April 2010, coauthor Rychlak 
was shown a copy of the minutes of the meeting that 
Pius XII had with the Curia in which he set forth plans 
for what should happen if the Nazis were to kidnap 


4. Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen 374-79 
(New York: Random House, 2005). 

5. See The Black Book of Communism. 

6. Ivan Serov, Wikipedia, September 10, 2009. 

7. John Barron, Breaking the Ring (Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin, 1987), at 318. 

8. Benjamin B. Fischer, The Katyn Controversy: Stalin 's 
Killing Field, Central Intelligence Agency, Center of 
the Study of Intelligence, CSI publications. Winter 

9. Hochhuth (1964) at 125-140. 

0. Ibid at 348. 

1. Andrew and Mitrokhin at 91-92, 102, 146, 165. 

2. Wikipedia, Arvid Hamack, May 26, 2010. 

3. Patricia Marx, An Interview with Rolf Hochhuth, 
Partisan Review, vol. 31, no. 3, Summer 1964, 368, 
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 52-65. 

4. Carlos Thompson, in his book The Assassination of 
Winston Churchill (Gerards Cross: Colin Smyth, 1968), 
describes his extensive research in an effort to identify 
Hochhuth’ s alleged sources for the material upon 
which his Soldiers was based, the retired British 
Intelligence man and the Polish lady. Thompson 
convincingly concludes they probably did not exist. 

5. Patricia Marx, An Interview with Rolf Hochhuth, 

Partisan Review, vol. 31, no. 3, Summer 1964, 368, 
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 52-65 

6. See Bittman at 77 (Soviets sent money to pro-Moscow 
publishing houses). 

7. Ibid at 111 . 

8. The Storm over the Deputy at 13. See also Taeni at 14 
(more in accord with Piscator’s account). 

9. Erwin Piscator’s introduction to The Deputy in the 
German edition published by Rowohlt, Hamburg, 1963; 
translation by Clara Mayer published in The Storm over 
The Deputy, 11. 

0. The Storm over The Deputy at 14-15. 

1. Ibid at 14. 

2. German Wikipedia, Erwin Piscator, September 19, 

3. Taeni at 14. See ibid at 20 (‘Tt really is doubtful 
whether The Representative would ever have seen the 
light of day if it had not come into the hands of such a 
famous producer as Erwin Piscator”); Ibid at 135 

4. Ward at 17 (‘T have learned that the poet always must 
be active in politics. That he is always responsible. The 
Deputy is politics”). 

5. Willett at 180. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid at \ 

8. In the play’s afterword, Hochhuth admitted that “the 
action does not follow the historical course of events 
and I allowed my imagination free play.” Hochhuth 
(1964) at 287, 348. 

9. See Sidney F. Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the 
Stage: A Look at the Major Productions of The 
Deputy,” 28 Educational Theatre Journal 347. 

0. Robert P. Lockwood, “Deconstructing The Deputy,” 
Catalyst, June 2000. Lockwood explains: 

For the most part, this was based on the pope’s 
opposition to the Allied demand for uneonditional 
German surrender. He believed sueh a demand would 
only eontinue the horror of the war and inerease the 
killing. That stand was later interpreted as a desire on 
the pontiffs part to maintain a strong Germany as a 
bulwark against eommunism. Hoehhuth’s eharge of 
papal silenee fit that revisionist theory. 

1 . “The characterization of Pacelli as a money-grubbing 
hypocrite is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous. 
Importantly, however, Hochhuth’ s play offends the 
most basic criteria of documentary: that such stories 
and portrayals are valid only if they are demonstrably 
true. Cornwell (1999) at 375. 

2. Ward at 38 (calling this “the most striking example” of 
Hochhuth’ s “departure from ‘Realism’” and noting that 
Hochhuth rejected the Mengele comparison). 

3. Leo Kerz, “Brecht and Piscator,” 20:3 Educational 

Theatre Journal 363, 369 (October 1968) (Kerz was 
the set and lighting designer and the recipient of the 

4. “Hochhuth does what no man can do; he inserts himself 
into the mind of Pius and draws only the worst 
conclusions. He is guilty of the worst kind of 
McCarthyism, and only the staggering immensity of his 
charge has kept people from seeing this fact.” James 
O’Gara, “The Real Issue,” Commonweal, February 28, 
1964, reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 219, 
221. Twenty- five years after Piscator’s production, 
German director Claus Peymann (known for “a radical 
style which had its roots in the political dreams of the 
late sixties”) produced The Deputy in Austria to 
coincide with a visit by Pope John Paul II. Peymann 
said that he did not like the play, but he produced it as a 
political challenge. Gitta Honegger, “Tales from the 
Imperial City,” 1 1:2 Performing Arts Journal 45, 50 

5. See “Reviews,” XII:2 World Theatre 140 (Summer 
1963) (“somewhere between a spoken report with 
scenes of great realism. . . and a fast paced discussion”). 
The review went on to note the difficulty of producing 
the play “from a text which if performed in total would 
have lasted six or seven hours.” Ibid. \ Sidney F. 

Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage: A Look at 
the Major Productions of ‘The Deputy,’” 28:3 

Educational Theatre Journal 347, 353 (Oct., 1976) 
(“How then should we judge Hochhuth as a 
playwright? The formal shape of his script suggests that 
he wishes to be judged by traditional dramatic 
standards, and by these standards one cannot speak 
well of him”). 

6. Lest this discussion be taken as trying to diminish 
Piscator’s unquestioned talent as a director, this 
passage from the set designer for the Berlin production 
of The Deputy is worthy of consideration: 

Piscator’s production of The Deputy, apart from 
becoming the biggest postwar theatre event and 
beeause of it, started a debate whieh affeeted and 
revised the views of philosophers, elergy, politieians, 
and historians in every eorner of the world. It touehed 
upon the eonseienee of the Catholie Chureh and, 
without a doubt, influeneed what happened at the last 
Eeumenieal Couneil. Piseator had eaught up with 
Breeht and proved that the theatre ean eontribute to 
the shaping of history as well as being shaped by 

Leo Kerz, “Brecht and Piseator,” 20:3 Educational 
Theatre Journal 363 (October 1968). 


1. Reprinted in Crankshaw at 559-618. 

2. Harry Schwartz, “We know now that he was a giant 
among men,” New York Times, September 12, 1971. 

3. Barron at 313-19. 

4. Ibid at 318. 


1. Victor L. Simpson, Italian Panel: Soviets Behind the 
Pope Attack, Associated Press, March 2, 2006; 
Freemantle at 107-08; Koehler at 116-22. In 2009 
journalist and former army intelligence officer John 
Koehler published Spies in the Vatican: The Soviet 
Union ’s Cold War against the Catholic Church. Using 
mainly East German and Polish secret police archives, 
Koehler concluded that the attempt was “KGB- 

2. In 2006, the Mitrokhin Commission (an Italian 
parliamentary commission set up to investigate alleged 
KGB ties to opposition figures in Italian politics) 
supported once again the Bulgarian theory. The 
commission reported that “leaders of the former Soviet 
Union were behind the assassination attempt,” and 
alleged that “the leadership of the Soviet Union took 
the initiative to eliminate Pope John Paul” because of 
his support for Solidarity. “Soviets Had Pope Shot for 
Backing Solidarity,” Daily Telegraph, March 3, 2006. 

3. Weigel offers little new information regarding Soviet 
involvement in the 1981 assassination attempt, but he 
does note that most Poles and many close friends of the 
pope felt that the Soviets were not innocent. He also 
makes clear that Western democracies did not look 
very hard; they were afraid of what they would find. 
See also George Weigel, “All War All the Time,” First 
Things, April 2011, at 34. 

4. The dishonesty was uncovered by Prof. Robert 
Gorman, who presented a paper on this topic at the 
October 2001 meeting of the Society of Catholic Social 

5. Thomas Merton, Dancing in the Water of Life (San 
Francisco: Harper, 1998), 84. 

6. “Vatican Chronicles: A Different Read,” Brill’s 
Content, April 2000, at 60, 120. 

7. Pacepa, Red Horizons, second edition, pictures 
following page 206. 

8. John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Fight to reveal the 
secrets that threaten the Vatican, The (London) Sunday 
Times, September 12, 1999. See also Rychlak (2010) at 
282, 428,430-431. 

9. See Rychlak (2000) (epilogue). 

0. Marx interview, reprinted in The Storm over The 
Deputy at 54-55. In another interview, Hochhuth said 
that in 1958, while he was working on the Gerstein 

story, the West German newspapers and radio suddenly 
“declared that a holy man had died,” and Hochhuth 
commented that, “the Germans loved Pius . . .and they 
called him the German Pope.” Judy Stone interview, 
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 49-50. 

1. Rychlak (2000) at 292-293, 435. 

2. Cornwell (2008) at XII. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Ibid. 


1. Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. 

2. Carroll, Constantine ’s Sword. 

3. Zuccotti, Under His Very Window. 

4. Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust. 

5. Kertzer’s The Popes against the Jews is highly 
dependent on the work of Italian scholar Giovanni 
Miccoli. Justus George Lawler recently completed a 
manuscript (Working title: Were the Popes against the 
Jews?) that dissects Kertzer’s arguments. 

6. Wistrich (2002). 

7. Cornwell, Breaking Faith. 

8. Katz, The Battle for Rome. See also Katz, Black 
Sabbath', Katz, Massacre in Rome. 

9. Goldhagen (2002). 

0. Zuccotti somehow tries to diminish this intervention by 
reporting that it “should be described not as an official 
diplomatic protest of the roundup but as a desperate 
plea for Weizsacker’s intervention to save the victims.” 
Under His Very Windows at 160. 

1. See Day at 22 (listing him among the anti-Nazi German 
leaders who were willing to risk their lives to topple the 

2. Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows at 159; cf. Notes du 
Cardinal Maglione, October 16, 1943, Actes et 
Documents, vol. 9, page 505, no. 368. Even critic 
James Carroll gave Maglione’s entire text in his book, 
Constantine’s Sword, at 525-526. 

3. Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows at 103. Zuccotti 
accused Valeri of manufacturing papal interventions on 
behalf of the Jews. See also Blet at 234-35. 

4. Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows at 63. 

5. Summi Pontificatus, para. 48. See Rychlak (2010). 

6. See, e.g., Daniel J. Goldhagen, “What Would Jesus 
Have Done?,” The New Republic, January 21, 2002. 

7. David Dalin, “Pius XII and the Jews,” The Weekly 
Standard, February 26, 2001, at 31-39. See also Ronald 
J. Rychlak, “Misusing History to Influence the Future,” 
Forum Focus (Summer 2002). 

8. The origin of this story seems to be in the following 

statement: There is finally the report that in the months 
preceding his death he was given Hochhuth’s play The 
Deputy to read and then was asked what one could do 
against it. Whereupon he allegedly replied: “Do against 
it? What can you do against the truth?” Hannah Arendt, 
Men in Dark Times 63 (New York: Harcourt Brace, 

9. Felicity O’Brien, Letter to the Editor, The Catholic 
Times [Manchester, England], July 20, 1997. 

0. Private correspondence from Loris Francesco Capovilla 
to the relator of Pius XIFs sainthood cause, dated May 
18, 2002. 

With regard to the aetions in favor of the Jews, 
affeeted partieularly in Istanbul in the years 1935- 
1944, whieh was reeognized and praised by Hebrew 
eommunities in Jerusalem, Istanbul, and the United 
States, it is obligatory to reeognize that Ronealli was 
and deelared himself the exeeutor of the thought and 
the direetives of Pius XIL He repeated, in faet: The 
papal representative is the eye, the ear, the mouth, the 
heart and the effeetive hand of the Pope. 

Ibid. Capovilla also said that Ronealli ’s rescue efforts 
on behalf of Jews make sense only if they are referred 
above everything else to Pius XH, of whom Ronealli 
was the careful and most faithful interpreter. Any 
strictly personal action, even though it be heroic, of 
Ronealli himself, would otherwise be inconceivable. 


1. McGum at 99. 

2. Pius died on October 9, 1958. Pope John XXIII knelt in 
prayer before Pius XIFs tomb on the ninth of each 
month. The New Catholic Treasury of Wit and Humor 
193-94 (New York: Meredith Press, 1968, Paul 
Bussard, ed.). 

3. John XXIII, Discorsi vol. I, p. 101. 

4. McGum at 36, 39. 

5. Discorsi I, at 101; Days of Devotion at 12 (“Pope 
John’s programme and its concern for the modem 
world naturally enough found much of its inspiration in 
Pope John’s predecessor under whom he served for 19 
years, and from whom came much of the intellectual 
foundation on which the Council is built. No one was 
more generous in acknowledging this debt than Pope 
John himself.”) 

6. John Cornwell, “Hitler’s Pope: The fight to reveal the 
secrets that threaten the Vatican,” The Sunday Times 
(London), Sept. 12, 1999, at 1. 

7. Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2000 (online edition). 

8. Ibid. In The Pontiff in Winter, Cornwell refers to his 
own inside-the- Vatican, deep throat: Monsignor Sotto 
Voce. Taking Cornwell at his word, and accepting his 
description of Monsignor Sotto Voce, The Pontiff in 
Winter is based upon an “inside account” from a 

disgruntled and burned-out Vatican official who trades 
secrets for a good meal and a couple of bottles of wine. 
The great advantage for Cornwell, of course, is that this 
lets him write almost anything, and unlike Hitler 's 
Pope, no one can prove it is false. It is very similar to 
claims made by Hochhuth in the 1960s. 

9. “Pope Stared Down Communism in Homeland,” 
CBCNEWS, April 2005 

< news/ obit/pope/communismhomel 

0. See Ronald J. Rychlak, “Guess Who’s Back?,” Catalyst 
(Jan.-Feb. 2002) (reviewing Breaking F aith)', Ronald J. 
Rychlak, “A Broken Faith: John Cornwell’s New 
Book,” St. Austin Review, July/ August 2002. 

1 . Cornwell presented the excommunication of Sri 
Fankan theologian Fr. Tissa Balasuriya as an example 
of the harshness of John Paul’s “authoritarian rule.” 
Balasuriya was excommunicated for theological 
aberrations, barely mentioned by Cornwell, that 
included the assertion that Christianity is on the same 
level as other religions, the denial of the virgin birth of 
Christ, and the rejection of the Holy Trinity. See 
Ronald J. Rychlak & Fr. Kevin Slattery, “A Clear-Cut 
Case for Excommunication,” New Oxford Review, 

April 1997. Cornwell used the excommunication to 
argue that John Paul was insensitive and out-of-touch 
with the modem world. He did not, however, even 
mention the extended negotiations between Balasuriya 

and the Vatican that preceded the excommunication. 
More incredibly, he failed to mention that one year 
after the excommunication was imposed, it was lifted. 
At that time, Balasuriya signed a statement expressing 
regret for perceptions of error in his work and agreed to 
submit future writings to bishops for approval prior to 
publication. This resolution to the matter, unknown to 
most readers of Breaking Faith, severely undercuts 
Cornwell’s thesis andhi^ credibility! 

2. He has not hidden his disappointment with Pope 
Benedict XVI: “The Pope is emerging as an ultra- 
reactionary.” John Cornwell, Profile: Pope Benedict 
XVI, New Statesman, February 12, 2009. In an example 
of trying to change the past, Cornwell presents himself 
as a great fan of Pope John Paul II, contrasting the late 
Pope to Benedict XVI. 

3. Similarly, James Carroll’s resolution to this history, as 
set forth in Constantine's Sword (pages 555-58), 
involves the convening of Vatican III, at which (in 
addition to rejection of papal infallibility, ordination of 
women, election of bishops, and relaxation of sexual 
rules) the Church would acknowledge errors in the 
gospels, learn to preach against those errors, and reject 
the belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation. 

4. Alan Cowell, “Demonstrators and Devout Greet the 
Pope in Germany,” New York Times, June 24, 1996, 
section A; page 3. 

5. Amaldo Cortesi, “Cardinals Irked by Soviet Charge,” 
New York Times, October 20, 1958. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Catholic Star Herald, July 7, 2010. 


1. Max Holland, The Kennedy Assassination Tapes (New 
York: Knopf, 2004), pp. 94-96. 

2. Ibid., p. 99. 

3. Ibid., pp. 148-149. 

4. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) 
Report, p. 99. 

5. Andrew and Gordievsky, p. 462. 

6. Barron, Breaking the Ring, pp. 148, 212. 

7. Epstein, Legend, p. 71. 

8. Warren Commission (WC) Report, p. 390. 

9. Ibid., p. 256. 

0. Edward J. Epstein, Legend: The Secret World of Lee 
Harvey Oswald (New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 
1978), pp. 72-73. 

l.Ibid.,pp. 77-79. 

2. WC Report, p. 684. 

3. Donovan testimony, WC Vol. 8, pp. 289-303. 

4. Epstein, Legend, pp. 85-86. 

5. Ibid., p. 89. 

6. Francis Gary Powers, with Curt Gentry, Operation 
Overflight: The U-2 spy pilot tells his story for the first 
time (New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1970), p. 357. 

7. Warren Commission Exhibit (WCE), 315. 

8. Powers, pp. 99- 111. 

9. Ibid. 

0. Ibid., p. 1 18. 

1. David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The U-2 Affair (New 
York: Random House, 1962), p. 54. 

2. “George de Mohrenschildt,” Spartacus Educational, 


1 . This event was reported on at length in the official 
Romanian newspaper, Scinteia, October 24, 1962, p. 1. 

2. William Hyland and Richard Wallace Shyrock, The 
Fall of Khrushchev (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 
1986), p. 56. 

3. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers: The Last 
Testament, translated and edited by Strobe Talbot 
(Boston: Fittle, Brown and Company, 1974), pp. 83-84. 

(This is the second volume of Khrushchev’s memoirs 
and will henceforth be referred to as Khrushchev IT) 

4. Khrushchev I, p. 338. 

5. Ibid., p. 392. 

6. Documents on International Affairs: 1957 (London: 
Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1960), p. 39. 

7. Joseph L. Nogee and Robert H. Donaldson, Soviet 
Foreign Policy Since World War II (New York: 
Pergamon Press, 1984), p. 121. 

8. David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The U-2 Affair (New 
York: Random House, 1962), pp. 57-58. 

9. Arnold L. Horelick and Myron Rush, Strategic Power 
and Soviet Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1966), p. 43. 

0. Khrushchev II, p. 533. 

1. PBS, Khrushchev’s biography, <>. 

2. Sergei N. Khrushchev, Nikita Khrushchev and the 
Creation of a Superpower (Pennsylvania State 
University Press, 2000). 


1. Alex von Tunzelmann, “Oliver Stone’s JFK: A basket 
case for conspiracy,” The Guardian, April 28, 2011. 

2. Barron, KGB, p. 430. 

3. Warren Commission Exhibit 2486. 

4. Testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine, Warren Commission 
Vol. 3, pp. 12-13. 

5. Warren Commission Exhibit 1400. 

6. Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Marina and Lee (New 
York: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 496. 

7. Epstein, Legend, p. 16. 

8. HSCA Report, p. 151. 

9. Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy 
(New York: Basic Books, 1993) p. 394. 

0. HSCA Report, p. 152. 


1. Max Holland, “How Moscow Undermined the Warren 
Commission,” Washington Decoded, March 30, 2007, 

2. “Book Review: The Mitrokhin Archive and the secret 
history of the KGB,” New York Times, 

http ://www.nytimes . com/books/first/ a/andrew- 

3. Biography of Joachim Joesten, 

http : //karws . gso .uri . edu/j fk/ thecritics/ Joesten/ Joestenbi 

4. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 226- 

5. Max Holland, “How Moscow Undermined.” 

6. Attributed to Armand Moss, Information, 
Disinformation, pp. 93 ff. 

7. Perlo’s review was found at 

8. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, 275. 

9. Jesse E. Curry, Retired Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry 
Reveals His Personal JFK Assassination File, Self- 
published, 1969, p. 74, affidavit of Dallas police officer 
Thurber T. Lord on August 20, 1964. 

0. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, 271-272. 

1. “I.F. Stone on the Kennedy Assassination,” December 
9, 1963, 


2. 1. F. Stone, “What Some People Have Forgotten About 
God’s ‘Deputy,’”/. F. Stone's Weekly (March 9, 1964), 
reprinted in The Storm over the Deputy, 234. 

3. Judy Stone, “Interview with Rolf Hochhuth,” 

Ramparts, Spring 1964, reprinted in The Storm over the 
Deputy, 42. 

4. Reclaiming History: The 
Assassination of President Kennedy (New York: 
Norton, 2007), p. 1000. 

5. Ibid., 1012-1013. 

6. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 228- 

7. Brian Latell, Castro ’s Secrets (New York: Palgrave 
Macmillan, 2012), 103, 215-216. 

8. Latell, 138-141. 

9. John Barron, Operation Solo: The FBTs Man in the 
Kremlin (Washington: Regnery, 1995), passim. 

0. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 287- 

1. Latell, 204-205. 

2. Ibid., 141-144. 

3. “How Powers’s plane was shot down,” 
< l.html> (Russian). 

4. Sergey Khrushchev, “The Day We Shot Down the U-2: 
Nikita Khrushchev’s son remembers a great turning 
point of the Cold War, as seen from behind the Iron 
Curtain,” American Heritage Magazine, Volume 51, 
Issue 5. 

5. Morton Kelly, “Gary Powers and the U-2 incident,” guide, American History, published as 
<http ://americanhistory. about . com/ od/ coldwar/a/gary_p 


1. Oriana Fallaci, Interviste con la Storia, quoted in Claire 
Sterling, The Terror Network 114 (New York: Reader’s 
Digest Press, 1981). 

2. For addition information see Ion Mihai Pacepa, 

“Russian Footprints,” National Review Online, August 

3. Craig R. Whitney, “East’s Archives Reveal Ties to 
Terrorists,” New York Times, July 15, 1990, at 6. 

4. John O. Koehler, Stasi: The Untold Story of the East 
German Secret Police 324 (Boulder, Colorado: 
Westview Press, 1999). 

5. Bundesamt fur Verfassungsschutz (BfV), the Office for 
the Protection of the Constitution. 

6. Craig R. Whitney, “East’s Archives Reveal Ties to 
Terrorists,” New York Times, July 15, 1990, at 6. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Christian Schmidt-Hauer, Gorbachev: The Path to 
Power (London: I. B. Tauris, 1987), p. 64. 

9. Boris Yeltsin: A biography of the former Russian 
President, University of Indiana (Internet edition). 


1. John Lloyd, “The Russian Devolution,” New York 
Times Magazine, August 15, 1999, p. 38. 

2. Richard Lourie, “Who Stole Russia?,” The Washington 
Post Book World, October 15, 2000, p. 3. 

3. Luke Harding, “The richer they come . . . Can Russia’s 
oligarchs keep their billions - and their freedom?,” The 
Guardian, July 1, 2007. 

4. “Could it lead to fascism?,” The Economist, July 11, 
1998, U.S. Edition, p. 19. 

5. “The Perils of Catching Cold,” Time, December 1997, 
p. 38. 

6. “Can the crisis end in a coup?,” Nezavisimaya Gazyeta, 
July 7, 1998, p. 1. 

7. Barry Renfrew, “Boris Yeltsin Resigns,” Washington 
Post, December 31, 1999. 

8. Ibid., p. 3. 

9. Ariel Cohen, “End of the Yeltsin Era,” Washington 
Times, January 3, 2000. 

0. John Lloyd, “The Logic of Vladimir Putin,” New York 
Times Magazine, March 19, 2000, p. 65. 

1. Celestine Bohlen, “Putin Tells Why He Became a 
Spy,” New York Times, March 1 1, 2000 (Internet 

2. Arnold Beichman, Hoover Institution, “Prologue for 
Putin,” Washington Times, January 10, 2000. 

3. Helle Bering, “Totalitarian Wannabes,” Washington 
Times, March 9, 2000. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Putin rocked Russians with ruthlessness, Agence 
France Presse, December 31, 1999, 

6. Ibid. 

7. Robert G. Kaiser, “Russia’s Enigmatic President,” 
Washington Post, October 15, 2000, p. B3. 

8. Anna Dolgov, “Book Called Propaganda for Putin,” 
Associated Press, September 29, 2000. 

9. Robert G. Kaiser, “Russia’s Enigmatic President,” 
Washington Post, October 15, 2000, p. B3. 

0. Russian government spokesman denies Putin 
personality cult, June 25, 2002, RIA news agency, 
Moscow, as published by Center for Defense 

1 . John Lloyd, “The Logic of Vladimir Putin,” New York 
Times Magazine, March 19, 2000, p. 65. 

2. Giles Whittel, “Putin lines up old KGB pals to run 
Kremlin,” The Times, London, February 14, 2000. 

3. Ibid. 

4. “Putin strengthens Kremlin’s power,” BBC News 
Online, World: Europe, May 14, 2000. 

5. David Hoffman, “Russian Security Service Revived 
under Putin,” Washington Post, December 8, 2000. 

6. Kathy Lahy, “Pardons turn rare in Putin’s Russia,” The 
Sun, Baltimore, June 14, 2001, p. 1. 

7. Michael R. Gordon, “Putin, in a Rare Interview, Says 
He’ll Use Ex-K.G.B. Aides to Root Out Graft,” New 
York Times, March 24, 2000. 

8. Details about Roman Malinovsky’s activity as a 
deepcover Okhrana officer can be found in Robert 

Conquest, Stalin: Breaker of Nations (New York: 
Viking, Penguin Group, 1991), pp. 47, 50, 51, 82. 

9. Mikhalkov made no secret of being a critic of the 
dissident writer Aleksander Solzhenitsyn and of Boris 
Pasternak, the author of Doctor Zhivago. Mikhalkov 
also let it be known that he still admired Stalin. 

0. “Russians tune up for Soviet-style start of the New 
Year,” Agence France Presse, Moscow, December 31, 

1. “An American in Russia,” Washington Times, editorial, 
December 18, 2000. 

2. Ibid at 2. 

3. Editorial, “Russia’s Spy Trials,” Washington Post, 
March 14, 2001, p. 24. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Bradley Cook, “Putin: The Inside Story,”, March 24, 2000 

6. Andrew Meier, “The Big Chill,” Time Europe, June 26, 
2000, vol. 155 No. 25. 


1. David Harsanyi, “The United Nations’ War Against 
Israel,” Capitalism Magazine, May 27, 2002 
<published on 


2. Frida Ghitis, “Yearning for a seat at the U.N.’s table,” 
Philadelphia Inquirer, July 16, 2004. 

3. “The U.N.’s record vis a vis Israel,” News: Facts & 

Info Reference Desk 


4. “Duma Deputy calls for the Extermination of all Jews 
in Russia,” November 10, 1998, 

5. Jean Mackenzie, “Anti-Semitism is resurfacing in 
Russia,” Boston Globe, November 8, 1998, 

6. Text of the US Senate letter, including signatures listed 
alphabetically, published at 

<www.j ewishvirtuallibrary . org/j source/History/Human 

7. “New racism declaration unveiled,”, September 4, 2001. 

8. Reuters, “Mandela urges fight against racist 
‘contagion,’” Aew York Times, September 1, 2001. 

9. Pamela Constable, “U. S., Israel Quit Forum on 
Racism,” Washington Post, September 4, 2001. 

0. Betsy Pisik, “U. S. walks out of conference on racism,” 
Washington Times, September 4, 2001. 

1 . Rich Lowry, “Setting standards to cope with Arafat,” 
Washington Times, March 23, 2002. 

2. Charles Krauthammer, “Me thinks thou do protest too 
much,”, November 23, 2001. 

3. Amaud de Borchgrave, “Militant Islam’s ambuscade,” 
Washington Times, Nov. 1, 2001. 

4. Damon Johnston, “New York survivor’s son turns 
traitor,” The Courier-Mail, November 10, 2001. 

5. Nick Fielding, “Encyclopedia of Terror,” The Sunday 
Times, November 4, 2001. 


1. Stella Rimington, “‘Humint’ Begins at Home,” Wall 
Street Journal, January 3, 2005. 

2. Ben Shapiro, “Keep an eye on Russia,”, 
August 23, 2002. 

3. George F. Will, “Israel’s best defense,” Washington 
Post, August 15, 2010, p. A13. 

4. “Iran will build uranium enrichment centers, nuclear 
chief says,” CNN wire, August 16, 2010. 

5. Zhou Enlai was bom into a Mandarin family and was 
sent to study in France (1922-24), where he caught the 
communist vims and established the Paris-based 
Chinese Communist Youth Group in 1924. 

6. William Taubman, Khrushchev vs. Mao: A Preliminary 
Sketch of the Role of Personality in the Sino-Soviet 
Split, Cold War International History Project Bulletin 

(Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International 
Center for Scholars, Winter 1996-97), p. 243. 

7. Yang Zheng, China ’s Nuclear Arsenal, National 
University of Singapore, March 6, 1996 


1. Douglas J. Brown, “Chekists Around the World 
Celebrate 9 HI,'', September 19, 2002 
<www.newsmax. com/ archives/articles/2002/ 18/17 0000 

2. Putin admits Russia ’s anti-Semitism, AFP Daily 
Dispatch, February 3, 2005. 

3. Luke Harding, “Putin, the Kremlin power struggle and 
the $40bn fortune,” The Guardian, December 21, 2007. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Adrian Blomfield, “Israel humbled by arms from Iran,” 
The Telegraph, August 15, 2006. 

6. Paul Weitz, “Hezbollah, Already a Capable Military 
Force, Makes Full Use of Civilian Shields and Media 
Manipulation,” J/A/SH Online, August 12, 2006. 

7. Ya Libnan, “Hezbollah confirms its cell members 
escaped Egyptian jails,” February 3, 201 1 

8. The Brotherhood, or Muslim Brotherhood, is an 

Islamic fundamentalist organization whose slogan is 
“Islam is the solution.” Its “General Strategic Goal for 
the Group in North America” makes its objectives 
clear: “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization- 
Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan 
must understand that their work in America is a kind of 
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western 
civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable 
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so 
that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made 
victorious over all other religions.” 

9. “Hizbullah Breaks 22 Terrorists out of Egyptian Jail,” 
Virtual Jerusalem, February 4, 201 1, 
option=com_content&view=article&id=25 12:hizbullah- 
jail&catid=l :headlines&Itemid=25 12>. 

0. “Hezbollah Chief Praises Tunisian, Egyptian 
Protesters, yaLIBNAN,” February 7, 201 1, 
< 1 1/02/07/hezbollah- 

1. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information 
Center, formerly The Intelligence and Terrorism 
Information Center, is an Israeli NGO. It was renamed 
in honor of Meir Amit, who served as Director of the 
Mossad from 1963 to 1968. The Center is directed by 
former Military Intelligence officer. Dr. Reuven 

Ehrlich. The center is often regarded as being the 
“public face of Israeli intelligence.” 

2. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “The Arafat I Knew,” Wall Street 
Journal, January 12, 2002. 

3. “Speech of numbers,” Peace for Israel, January 5, 2003 
(published on 

4. Thomas L. Friedman, “The New Math,” New York 
Times, op-ed, January 15, 2002, p. A23. 

5. Yevgenia Albats, The KGB: The State Within a State 
23 (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994). 

6. See generally Goldfarb and Fitvinenko; Cowell; UK 
wants to try Russian for Litvinenko murder. The 
Guardian, January 26, 2007. 

7. Daniel McGrory, and Tony Halpin, (20 January 2007). 
“Police match image of Fitvinenko ’s real assassin with 
his death-bed description,” London Times Online. 

8. “Russian faces Fitvinenko charge,” BBC News, May 
22, 2007,, 
(retrieved May 22, 2007). 

9. “Wrap: Fugovoi says innocent, Berezovsky behind 
Fitvinenko murder,” Moscow: RIA Novosti, August 29, 

(accessed March 16, 2010). 

0. “Ivan Safronov was killed: Prosecutor begins an 
investigation of ‘incitement to suicide,’”, March 6, 2007. 

1 . 


2. Seamus Martin, “Russian Patriarch was KGB agent, 
Files Say,” The Irish Times, September 23, 2000 as 
published on 

3. “Russian Orthodox Church chooses between ‘ex-KGB 
candidates’ as patriarch,” Times Online, January 26, 
2009. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the 


1. Mark Lilia, The Politics of Jacques Derrida, The New 
York Reviews of Books, June 25, 1998 (Internet 

2. Waller R. Newell, Postmodern Jihad: What Osama bin 
Laden learned from the Left, The Weekly Standard, 
November 26, 2001, p. 26 

3. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (London: 
Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 28. 

4. David Pryce-Jones, Evil Empire, the Communist ‘hot, 
smart book of the moment, ’ National Review Online, 
September 17, 2001. 

5. Statement Against the U.S. war on Iraq and for the 

peaceful solution of the problem, December 14, 2002. 

6. Announcement ofWPC Secretariat, December 14, 


7. Statement Against the U.S. war on Iraq and for the 
peaceful solution of the problem, December 14, 2002. 

8. World Demands Regime Change in Washington, 
Workers, Newstand date April 10, 2003, 

Vol. 45, No. 14. 

9. Presidency 2000, Politics 1, as published on 
www.politics 1 .com. 

0. About Workers World, as published on 

1 . Largest anti-war rally, Guinness Book of Records, 

2. A complete list of “Coalition Co-signers” can be found 
on the Internet. 

3. Transportation/local event inquiries, 
< campaign/ a 1 2transp .htrr 

4. “Schroeder attacked over gas post,” BBC News. 
December 10, 2005. 

http : //news .bbc . CO .uk/2/hi/ europe/45 15914. stm. 

5. Gerhard Schroeder’s Sellout,” Washington Post. 
December 13, 2005. 

6. Dunphy, Harry (13 June 2007). “Lantos Raps Former 
European Leaders,” Associated Press, 

13-2870151492 x.htm. 


1. Statement of John F. Kerry before the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, p. 

ref=document/kerry20040423 1 047. asp. 

2. Clifford D. May, “Side Show,” National Review On 
Line, April 28, 2004. 

3. Marvin E. Gettleman, Vietnam and America: A 
Documented History, New York: Grove Press, 1985, p. 

4. Joseph Libermann, “Democrats and Our Enemies,” 

Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2008. 

5. David Horowitz, “Stab in the Back,” FrontPage 
Magazine, February 12, 2004. 

6. Doug Donovan, “O’Malley Takes the Heat for 
Remarks about Bush,” Baltimore Sun, July 1, 2004. 

7. “They want four more years of hell,” Teresa Heintz 
Kerry, responding to a Bush supporter yelling ‘four 
more years’ at a Democratic rally in Missouri,” TIME, 
Special Report, August 16, 2004, p.l9. 

8. Robert Amsterdam, Obama and McCain Fumble 
Russian Debate, October 9, 2008 
< 1 0/obamaand 

9. Stephane Courtois, Le Livre Noir du communisme: 
Crimes, terreur, repression (Edition Robert Laffont, 
Paris, 1997), pp. 258-264. 

0. Harry de Quetteville and Andrew Pierce, Russia 
threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile 
shield deal,, August 15, 2008. 

1 . The digits are the last digits of the postal code, and the 
name is that of the nearest big city; that was a common 
practice of giving names to closed towns. 

2. Murray Feshbach, “The Toxic Archipelago in the 
Former U.S.S.R, An Empire of Deadly Waste,” 
Washington Post, July 1 1, 1993, p. Cl. 


4. Gary B. Nash, Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Allen 
F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, and Carla 
Gardina Pestana, The American People, Concise 
Edition Creating a Nation and a Society, combined 
volume, 6^^ Edition (New York, Longman, 2007). 

5. Elizabeth E. Spalding, The First Cold Warrior: Harry 
Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal 
Internationalism 1 (University Press of Kentucky, 

6. The American Committee for Freedom for the Peoples 
of the USSR was started in 1951, and its broadcast 
station became known as Radio Liberty. For more on 
VGA during this period, see David F. Krugler, The 

Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda 
Battles, 1945-1953(Columbia: University of Missouri 
Press, 2000); for more on RFE/RL, see Arch 
Puddington, Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War 
Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Eiberty 
(Eexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000). 

7. Nestor Ratesh, “Radio Free Europe’s Impact in 
Romania during the Cold War,” prepared for the 
Conference on Cold War Broadcasting Impact, 
Stanford, CA, October 13-15 2004. 

8. “War in the Caucasus,” The Wall Street Journal, 
August 9, 2008, p. AIO. 

9. “Russian army chief: We’ll use nuclear weapons if 
ihxQdiiQnQd,'' Associated Press, January 19, 2008. 


1. Denis Woychuk, “KGB Bar - A Brief and Distorted 
History,” <>. 

2. “American capitalism gone with a whimper,” Pravda, 
April 27, 2004. 

3. Jacques Derrida, “From Specters of Marx: What is 
Ideology?” extracted from Specters of Marx, the state 
of the debt, the Work of Mourning, & the New 
International, translated by Peggy Kamuf (Routledge, 
1 994) as published in 

pp. 1-3. 

4. Edward Marshall, “The War an Economic Disaster,” 
New York Times, Magazine Section, June 6, 1915, p. 


1. David S. Broder, “Obama’s Enigma,” Washington 
Post, July 13, 2008, p. B7. 

2. John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret 
Agents (New York: Reader’s Digest Books, 1974, 
reprinted by Bamtam Books), p. 429. 

3. Zhores Medvedev, Gorbachev. New York: Norton, 
1987, p. 37. 

4. Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking for 
Our Country and the World (New York: Harper & 

Row, 19"^!), passim. 

5. Tom Baldwin, “Schools are still crumbling in corridor 
of shame’ haunted by the old South,” Timesonline, 
January 28, 2008. 

6. James Joyner, “Obama Che Guevara Flag Scandal,” 
Outside the Beltway, February 12, 2008, as posted at 

7. < 
v=oQNk V mdic V A&feature=related> . 

8. “How Many Speeches Did Obama Give?,”, July 16, 2010, as posted on 

9. “Right-Wing Media Fixated On Obama’s “Shamless” 
Bin Laden Speech,” MEDIAMATTERS, May 3, 201 1, 
< 10503003 1>. 

0. George Landrith, “The ‘it’s all about me’ president,” 
The Daily Caller, May 5, 201 1, as posted on 

<http ://dailycaller. com/20 1 1 /05/03/the-its-all-about- 

1 . 


2. David Jackson, “Obama’s first term by the numbers,” 
USA Today, January 20, 2013, 

< story/theoval/20 1 3/0 1/20/ob 
first- term-numbers-mark-knoller/ 1 849 141/? 
News Top S tories+(N ews+-+T op+ S tories)> . 

3. Peter Kinder, “Missourians Reject Obama’s Brand of 
Radical Liberalism,” Human Events, May 30, 2008, as 
posted on 



4. ABC News video “Joe the Plumber,” October 15, 2008. 

5. Jonathon M. Seidl, “Obama Compares Himself To 

Reagan: Republicans Aren’t Accusing Him Of ‘Being 
Socialist,”’ The Blaze, October 5, 201 1, as posted on 

6. Alexandra' Petri, Obama is up there with Lincoln, 
Roosevelt, and Johnson,” Washington Post, December 
12, 201 1, PostOpinions. 

7. David Nakamura, “Obama invokes Teddy Roosevelt in 
speech attacking GOP policies,” Washington Post, 
December 6, 2011. 

8. Ross Kaminsky, “What Will Obama’s Plans Cost the 
Nation?” Human Events, March 17, 2008, online at 

9. Ibid., p. 1. 

0. “Video of the week: We have to pass the bill so you 
can find out what is in it,” The Heritage Foundation, 
March 10, 2010. 

1. Lt. Col. Oliver North, “I Am an Extremist,”, May 16, 2009, 

2. Doug Mainwaring, “We are all Tea Partiers now,” 
Washington Times, September 30, 2010, p.l. 

3. “Rep. Maxine Waters has a socialist Freudian slip,” 
Newsreal, August 1, 2009, posted live voice 



4. Lawrence Summers, “Why isn’t capitalism working?,” 
Reuters, January 9, 2012, 

<http ://blogs .reuters . com/lawrencesummers/20 1 2/0 1 / 09 

5. Robert Reich, “Why Obama Should be Attacking 
Casino Capitalism — Both Romney’s Bain and 
JPMorgan,” Politico, June 8, 2012, 
bain-romney_b_l 537449.html>. 

6. < 

incidents/20 1 2/05/ 1 0/gIQA3 WOKFU_story.html>. 




8. < 




0. Mark Thompson, Werner Sombart and American 
Exceptionalism, Munster, Lit Verlag, ISBN 978-3- 


1. James Welsh sent the author copies of these 

2. Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Arafat Murdered US 
Diplomats, Could Face DOJ Arrest Warrant,” Insight 
Magazine, June 4, 2001. 

3. Julian Becker, The PLO: The Rise And Fall Of The 
Palestine Liberation Organization (New York: St. 
Martin’s Press, 1984) p. 41. 

4. Suzanne Fields, “The Ghosts of Auschwitz,”, December 10, 2001. 

5. Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordlevsky, KGB: The 
Inside Story (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), p. 545. 

6. By 1969 Nasser’s Egypt accounted for 43% of all 
Soviet aid to the Third World. 

7. The summit took place in Barcelona, in April 1969, and 
is described in Claire Sterling, The Terror Network 
(New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1981), p. 115. 

8. Michael Freund, “73% Increase in Israelis killed in 2 
Years Since Oslo,”, September 15, 

9. “Speech of numbers,” Peace for Israel, January 5, 


0. Thomas L. Friedman, “The New Math,” New York 
Times, op-ed, January 15, 2002, p. A23. 

1. “Clinton’s Praise of Arafat’s ‘Decades’ of PLO 
Leadership Implicitly Justifies Terrorism,” Zionist 
Organization of America, October 28, 1998, (Internet 
edition), <>. 

2. “Yasser Arafat, Poloniu Poisoning and the Curies,” 
HUFFPOST, November 27, 2012. 

3. “The originator of the acts of terrorism in London was 
standing near Tony Blair,” UK Indymedia, July 19, 


4. Ludwig De Braeckeleer, “Was Romano Prodi the Top 
Man in Italy?” Ohmy News International, November 
23, 2006. 

5. Ferdinando Imposimato e Sandro Provvisionato, 
Doveva morire. Chi ha ucciso Aldo Moro, 

Chiarelettere, 2008, Capitolo 9: “La lunga mano del 
KGB”; Mitrokhin Commission, Wikipedia, December 

6. Philip Wilian, “KGB linked to Prodi’s ghostly insight. 
The European Commission special Report,” The 
Guardian, October 20, 1999. 

7. Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, The Sword 
and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret 
History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 

8. Douglas Frantz and James Risen, “A Secret Iran- Arafat 

Connection Is Seen Fueling the Mideast Fire,” New 
York Times, March 23, 2002 (Internet edition). 

9. Dan Ephron, “’’Israel captures 50 tones of Iranian 
arms,” Washington Times, January 5, 2002, Internet 

0. “Passover suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya - 
27 - March - 2002,” Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs, 
March 27, 2002. 

1. “The ‘Massacre’ In Jenin,” Peace with Realism, as 
posted on 

2. Corky Siemaszko, “13 Slain by Boy Bomber,” Daily 
News, April 10, 2002 (Internet edition). 

3. Gerald M. Steinberg, “Arafat’s Leninist Strategy,” 
National Review Online, April 22, 2002. 

4. Matt Rees, “The Battle of Jenin,” Time Magazine, May 
17, 2002, (Internet edition). 

5. Betsy Pisik and Ben Barber, “Powel finds no proof of 
Israeli massacre in Jenin,” Washington Times, April 25, 
2002, p.l, (Internet edition). 

6. Joel Mowbray, “Arafat elected?” National Review 
Online, April 25, 2002. 

7. “Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit: 
Note by the Secretary-General,” United Nations, 
General Assembly, Fifty-ninth session. Agenda item 
55, p.3. 

8. “Amr M. Moussa: A Nationalist Vision for Egypt,” The 

Middle East Quarterly, September 1996, Volume III, 



1. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “Left-Wing Monster: Ceausescu,”, February 10, 2006, as published 

2. Petr Chaadayev, Russian sociologist, Moscow, 1854. 


1. Amaud de Borchgrave, “Romanian Spies Under 
Scrutinity,” United Press International, February 13, 

2. “Magistratii ICCJ, inainte de a fi comunisti sunt 
imbecili”(Before being communists, Romania’s 
Supreme Court magistrates are imbeciles) ,Z/U4, 
Bucharest, January 31, 2009, p. 1. 

3. “The U.S. anti-missile project in Romania: New 
administration, same old policy,” RIANO-VOST, 
February 24, 2010 


4. “Magistratii ICCJ, inainte de a fi comunisti sunt 
imbecili”(Before being communists, Romania’s 

Supreme Court magistrates are imbeciles), ZIUA, 
Bucharest, January 31, 2009, p. 1. 

5. < 
larry-watts-din- 1 960-pana-in-septembrie- 1989- 






<http ://www. ziare/ articol/ articol/pacepa-a- 
kgb-interviu-bookiseala-cu-larry-watts— am-dat-de- 

<http :// carte detalii/pacepa-a-recunoscut-in- 










cartii-lui-larry-watts/7 1251 .html>; 






6. Ibid. 

7. Serviciul Roman de Informatii (Romania’s Intelligence 
Service), Cartea Alba a Securitatii (The White Book of 
the Securitate), Bucharest, 1994. 

8. Serviciul Roman de Informatii, Cartea Alba a 
Securitatii, (Romanian Intelligence Service, The White 
Book of the Securitate), Bucuresti, Editura Presa 
Romaneasca, 1996. 

9. “Casa Pacepa Demolata” (House Pacepa demolished),, March 6, 2009, 


0. President Nicolae Ceausescu ’s State Visit to the USA: 
April 12-17, 1978, English version, (Bucharest: 
Meridiane Publishing House, 1978), p. 78. 

1. Roger Kirk and Mircea Raceanu, Romania Versus the 
United States: Diplomacy of the Absurd, 1985-1989 
(Washington: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 


2. The author has a copy of the letter. 

3. The author has the original letter. The letter was also 
quoted in my letter to the editor, published in the New 
York Times Book Review, March 27, 1988, p. 49. 

4. The author has the original letter. 


1 . 
news/ 1 8 77 5 5 7/posts . 

2. “World: Was Soviet Collapse Last Century’s Worst 
Geopolitical Catastrophe?” Radio Free Europe - Radio 
Liberty,'' December 27, 2012, 

3. “US intellectuals call for European criticism of US war 
on terror,” Agence France Presse, April 9, 2001, 14:10 
PM, (Internet edition). 

4. John Pilger, “War on Terror: The Other Victims: The 
irresponsibility of this conflict is breathtaking,”, October 29, 2001. 

5. Mark Goldblatt, “French Toast,” National Republic 
Online, December 13, 2001, 8:45 am. 

6. “Announcement For Candidacy For Presidency,” 
Washington, D.C., March 16, 1968, as published in 


7. “Top 10 Reasons To Be Proud Of The United States,” 1 0-reasons-to-be-proud-of- 
the-united-states .php . 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid. 

0. “List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita,” 


1 . Gary Shapiro, “Is America the Greatest Country in the 
World?”,, July 25, 2012, as published in 
http : //www. forbes . com/sites/gary shapiro/20 1 2/07/2 5/is- 

2. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “Do as I Did, An open letter to 
Saddam Hussein’s generals” National Review on Line, 
March 22, 2003, 



Actes et Documents du Saint Siege Relatifs d la Seconde 
Guerre Mondiale, Volumes I-XI (Libreria Editrice 
Vaticana: Citta del Vaticano, 1965-1981); English 
edition (volume one only; Corpus Books: 
Washington, DC, Gerard Noel, ed. 1967-1977). 
Volume III is split into two books; thus some authors 
refer to 12 volumes instead of 1 1 . 

Akmadza, Miroslav. The Position of the Catholic Church 
in Croatia 1945-1970, Review of Croatian History 
2/2006, no.l, 89. 

Albats, Yevgenia. The KGB: The State Within a State 
(New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994). 

Alexander, Stella. Croatia: The Catholic Church and 
Clergy, 1919-1945, in Catholics, the State, and the 
European Radical Right, 1919-1945, edited by 
Richard J. Wolff and Jorg K. Hoensch (New York: 
Columbia University Press, 1987). 

The Triple Myth (1987): A Life of Archbishop 

Alojzije Stepinac (Boulder: East European 
Monographs, 1987). 

Alvarez, David. Spies in the Vatican: Espionage & 

Intrigue from Napoleon to the Holocaust (Lawrence: 
University Press of Kansas, 2002). 

Alvarez, David & Robert A. Graham. Nothing Sacred: 
Nazi Espionage against the Vatican 1939-1945 
(London: Frank Cass, 1997). 

Ambrosini, Maria Luisa. The Secret Archives of the 

Vatican (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996). 

The American Jewish Yearbook, 1943-1944 

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1944). 

Andrew, Christopher & Oleg Gordlevsky. KGB: The 
Inside Story (New York: HarperCollins, 1990). 

Andrew, Christopher & Vasili Mitrokhin. The Sword and 
the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret 
History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999). 

Barron, John. KGB: The Secret World of Soviet Secret 
Agents (New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1974). 

Barton, Dennis. Croatia 1941-1946 (The Church in 
History Information Centre, 2006). 

Besier, Gerhard & Francesca Piombo. The Holy See and 
Hitler's Germany (Basingstroke, UK: Palgrave 
Macmillan, 2007). 

Bittman, Ladislav. The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: 
An Insider's View (Washington, DC: Pergamon- 
Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 1985). 

The Black Book of Communism (Murphy & Kramer, 
trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

Blet, Pierre. Pius XII and the Second World War (New 
York: Paulist Press, Lawrence J. Johnson trans., 

Bozanic, Cardinal Josip. The Most Illustrious Figure of 

the Church in Croatia: Pastoral letter on the 
occasion of the centenary of the birth of the Servant 
of God Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, March 1, 1998, 

reprinted in Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Blazeni Alojzije 

Stepinac, Bastina koja obvezuje (Zagreb: Glas 
Koncila, 2008). 

Brent, Jonathan. Inside the Stalin Archives (New York: 
Atlas & Co., 2008). 

Briining, Heinrich. Memoiren, 1918-1934 (Stuttgart: 

Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970). 

Bulajic, Milan. The Role of the Vatican in the Break-Up 
of the Yugoslav State (Belgrade: Ministry of 
Information of the Republic of Serbia, 1993). 
Burleigh, Michael. The Cardinal Basil Hume Memorial 
Lectures: Political Religion and Social Evil, 3 
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1 
(Autumn 2002). 

Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Nazi 

Germany, 1900-1945 (New York: Cambridge 

University Press, 1994). 

Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and 

Politics in Europe from the French Revolution to the 
Great War (New York: Harper Collins, 2006). 

Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and 

Politics, From the Great War to the War on Terror 
(New York: HarperCollins, 2007). 

The Third Reich: A New History (New York: Hill 

& Wang, 2001). 

Bums, Jeffrey M. No Longer Emerging: Ramparts 
Magazine and the Catholic Laity, 1962-1968, US 
Catholic Historian, vol. 9:3 (1990). 

Carroll, James. Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the 
Jews: A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 
2001 ). 

Carroll- Abbing, John Patrick. But for the Grace of God — 
The Houses Are Blind (New York: Delacorte Press, 

A Chance to Live: The Story of the Lost Children 

of the War (London: Longman, Green & Co., 1952). 

Catholics Remember the Holocaust (United States 
Catholic Conference: Washington, DC, 1988). 

Chadwick, Owen. A History of Christianity (St. Martin’s 
Press: New York, 1995). 

Britain and the Vatican During the Second World 

War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 


Weizsdcker, the Vatican, and the Jews of Rome, 

28 Journal of Ecclesiastical History 179 (April 1977). 

Chambers, Colin. Inside the Royal Shakespeare 

Company: Creativity and Institution (London and 
New York: Routledge, 2004). 

Chambers, Whittaker. Witness (New York: Random 
House, 1952). 

Chronicle of the 20th Century (Mount Kisco, NY : 
Chronicle Publications, C. Daniel, ed., 1986). 

Cianfarra, Camille. The Vatican and the War (New York: 
Literary Classics, Inc., distributed by E.P. Dutton & 
Company, 1944). 

The Ciano Diaries (New York: Doubleday & Company, 
Inc., Hugh Gibson, ed., 1946). 

Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Beatificationis et 
Canonizationis Servi Dei Pii XII (Eugenii Pacelli) 
Summi Pontificis (1876-1958): Positio Super Vita, 
Virtutibus et Fama Sanctitatis (Rome, 2004) [the 

Conway, John S. The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 
1932-45 (London: Weidenfeld andNicolson, I960; 
and New York: Basic Books, 1969). 

The Vatican, Great Britain, and Relations with 

Germany, 1938-1940, XVI The Historical Journal, 
147 (1973). 

Cooney, John. The American Pope: The Life and Times of 
Francis Cardinal Spellman (New York: Times 

Books, 1984). 

Cornwell, John. Breaking Faith: The Pope, the People, 
and the Fate of Catholicism (New York: Viking 
Press, New York, 2001). 

Hitler ’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII 

(New York: Viking Press, 1999; and New York: 
Penguin Books, 2008). 

The Pontiff in Winter (New York: Doubleday, 


Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly Illusions (New 
York: Crown, 1993). 

Cowell, Alan S. The Terminal Spy (London: Doubleday, 

Crankshaw, Edward. Khrushchev: A Career (New York: 
Viking, 1966). 

Crozier, Brian. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire 
(Rocklin, CA: Forum, 1999). 

Custine, Marquis Astolphe de. Journey for our Time: The 
Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custine 
(Washington, DC: Regnery, Phyllis Penn Kohler ed. 
& trans., 1987). 

Dalin, David. The Myth of Hitler's Pope (Washington, 
DC: Regnery, 2005). 

Davis, Melton S. All Rome Trembled (New York: G.P. 
Putnam’s Sons, 1957). 

Day, Edward. “Pius XII and the Hitler Plot,” Liguorian, 
October 1968. 

Days of Devotion: Daily Meditations from the Good 
Shepherd Pope John XXIII (New York: Penguin 
reprint, John P. Donnelly, ed., 1998). 

The Defection of General Ion Mihai Pacepa. Radio 
Romania International. April 4, 201 1. Transcript, 
< shtml? 
lang=2+sec=40+art= 121 082>. 

Der Streit um Hochhuth ’s “Stellvertreter” 
(Basel/Stuttgart: Basilius Presse, 1963). 

Deutsch, Harold C. The Conspiracy against Hitler in the 
Twilight War (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota 
Press, 1968). 

Die Brief e an die Deutschen Bischofe 1939-1944 

(Griinewald: Mainz, Burkhart Schneider ed., 1966). 

Diskin, Hanna. The Seeds of Triumph: Church and State 
in Gomulka 's Poland (Budapest: Central European 
University Press, 2001). 

Dunn, Dennis J. The Catholic Church and Russia: Popes, 
Patriarchs, Tsars and Commissars (Burlington, VT: 
Ashgate, 2004). 

Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, 
and Social Policy (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow 
Press, Michael L. Coulter et al., eds., 2007). 

Epstein, Edward J. Legend: The Secret World of Lee 
Harvey Oswald (New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 

Esslin, Martin. “Brecht and the English Theatre.” The 

Tulane Drama Review, 1 1 :2 (Winter 1966). 

Examining the Papacy of Pope Pius XII (Rome: Pave the 
Way Foundation, 2008). 

Falconi, Carlo. The Silence of Pius XII Little 

Brown, B. Wall trans. 1970). 

Fatemi, Faramarz S. The USSR in Iran: The Background 
History of Russian and Anglo-American Conflict in 
Iran (A.S. Barnes & Co. 1980). 

Feldkamp, Michael F. Der Teufelspakt des Anti-Semiten, 
in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, January 10, 2000, 
at 7. 

Fisher, Desmond. Pope Pius XII and the Jews: An Answer 
to Hochhuth ’s Play 'Der Stellvertreter” (The 
Deputy) (Glen Rock, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1965). 

Frattini, Eric. The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican 
Espionage (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008). 

Freemantle, Brian. KGB: Inside the World's Largest 
Intelligence Network (New York: Holt, Rinehart and 
Winston, 1982). 

Friedlander, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews, Volume I: 
The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939 (New York: 
HarperCollins, 1997). 

Pius XII and the Third Reich: A Documentation 

(New York: Knopf, C. Pullman trans., 1966). 

From Hitler’s Doorstep: The Wartime Intelligence 

Reports of Allen Dulles, 1942-1945 (University Park: 
Pennsylvania State University Press, Neal H. 

Peterson, ed., 1996). 

Frost, David. An Autobiography (London: HarperCollins, 

Gahlinger, Anton J. I Served the Pope (Techny, IL: The 
Mission Press, 1952). 

Gallagher, Charles R. Vatican Secret Diplomacy: Joseph 
P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII (New Haven: Yale 
University Press, 2008). 

Gaspari, Antonio. Gli ebrei salvati da Pio XII (Rome: 
Edizioni Logos, 2001). 

Gilbert, Martin. Auschwitz and the Allies (New York: 
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1981). 

The Second World War: A Complete History 

(New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1987). 

Gitman, Esther. A Question of Judgment: Dr. Alojzije 
Stepinac and the Jews, Review of Croatian History 
Volume II, no. 1 (January 2007): 47. 

Godman, Peter. Hitler and the Vatican: The Secret 

Archives That Reveal the New Story of the Nazis and 
the Vatican (New York: Free Press, 2004). 

Goldfarb, Alex, and Marina Litvinenko. Death of a 
Dissident: The Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko 
and the Return of the KGB (New York: Free Press, 

Goldhagen, Daniel J. A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the 
Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled 
Duty of Repair (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002). 

Golitsyn, Anatoliy. New Lies for Old: The Communist 
Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (New 
York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984). 

Graham, Robert A. Pius XIPs Defense of Jews and 
Others: 1944-45 (Catholic League Publications: 
Milwaukee, 1987). This is also reprinted 'm Pius XII 
and the Holocaust: A Reader (Catholic League 
Publications: Milwaukee, 1988). 

Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Hungary in 1944 

(United States Catholic Historical Society, undated). 

The Vatican and Communism During World War 

II: What Really Happened? (San Francisco: Ignatius 
Press, 1996). 

Hatch, Alden & Seamus Walshe. Crown of Glory: The 
Life of Pope Pius XII (New York: Hawthorn Books, 

Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. Verona: Decoding 
Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale 
University Press, 1999). 

Haynes, John Earl, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander 
Vassiliev. Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in 
America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). 

Hinkle, Warren. If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade 
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1974). 

A History of the Third Reich, Vol. 4, Primary Sources 
(Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2003; Jeff 
T. Hays, ed.). 

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 
Ralph Manheim trans., 1971). 

Hochhuth, Rolf. The Deputy (New York: Grove Press, 
Winston trans., 1964). 

Soldiers (New York: Grove Press, MacDonald 

trans., 1968). 

Holmes, J. Derek. The Papacy in the Modern World 
1914-1978 (New York: Crossroad, 1981). 

Hook, Sidney. Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the 20^^ 
Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1987). 

Hoover, J. Edgar. Masters of Deceit (Pocket Books, 

Horowitz, David. Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey 
(New York: The Free Press, 1997). 

Hughes, John Jay. Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History 
(Ft. Wayne: Our Sunday Visitor Books, 1994). 

Kalugin, Oleg. The First Directorate: My 32 Years in 
Intelligence and Espionage against the West (New 
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994). 

Spymaster: My Thirty-Two Years in Intelligence 

and Espionage against the West (New York: Basic 
Books, 2009). 

Kasper, Cardinal Walter. “Recent Developments in 
Jewish-Christian Relations.” Speech. Hope 
University, Fiverpool. World Jewish Congress., May 
24, 2010,> 

Katz, Robert. The Battle for Rome: The Germans, the 

Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope (New York: 
Simon and Schuster, 2003). 

Black Sabbath: A Journey through a Crime 

against Humanity (New York: Macmillan, 1969). 

Massacre in Rome (New York: Ballantine, 1973) 

(originally released as Death in Rome). 

Kengor, Paul. Dupes: How America ’s Adversaries Have 
Manipulated Progressives for a Century 
(Wilmington: ISI Books, 2010). 

Kent, Peter C. The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII 
(Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University 
Press, 2002). 

A Tale of Two Popes: Pius XI, Pius XII and the 

Rome-Berlin Axis, 23 Journal of Contemporary 
History 589 (1988). 

Kertzer, David I. The Popes against the Jews: The 

Vatican ’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism 
(New York: Knopf, 2001). 

Khrushchev, Nikita. Khrushchev Remembers (Boston: 
Little, Brown, Strobe Talbot, ed., 1970). 

Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament 

(Boston: Little, Brown, Strobe Talbot, ed., 1974). 

Koehler, John. Spies in the Vatican: The Soviet Union 's 
Cold War against the Catholic Church (New York: 
Pegasus, 2009). 

Kristo, Jure. An American View of the Belgrade Episode 
of Archbishop Joseph P. Hurley in Review of 

Croatian History (Vol. 4, December 2008) at 218. 

The Catholic Church and the Jews in the 

Independent State of Croatia, Review of Croatian 
History, Vol. 3, February 2007), no. 1, 13, 16. 

The Catholic Church in Croatia and Bosnia- 

Herzegovina in the Face of Totalitarian Ideologies 
and Regimes, in Religion under Siege: The Roman 
Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), 
(Gevers & Bank, editors, 2007). 

Kurzman, Dan. A Special Mission: Hitler’s Secret Plot to 
Seize the Vatican and Kidnap Pope Pius XII 
(Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2007). 

Kustow, Michael. Peter Brook: A Biography (New York: 
St. Martin’s Press, 2005). 

Lackovic, Stephen. The Case against Tito (memorandum, 

Lapide, Pinchas E. Three Popes and the Jews (New York: 
Hawthorn Books, 1967; London: Sands and Co., 

Lapomarda, Vincent A. The Jesuits and the Third Reich 
(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989). 

Lavretsky, I. Ernesto Che Guevara (Moscow: Progress 
Publishers, 1976). 

Levai, Jeno. Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pius XII 
Did Not Remain Silent (London: Sands and Co., 

Lewy, Guenter. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany 

(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). 

Ley-Piscator, Maria. The Piscator Experiment: The 
Political Theatre (New York: James H. Heineman, 
Inc., 1967). 

Lichten, Joseph L. A Question of Judgment: Pius XII and 
the Jews, in Pius XII and the Holocaust: A Reader 
(Milwaukee: Catholic League Publications, 1988). 

Litvinenko, Alexander and Yuri Felshtinsky. Blowing Up 
Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror 
(New York: Encounter Books, 2007). 

Low, Konrad. Die Schuld: Christen und Juden im Urteil 
der Nationals ozialis ten und der Gegenwart 
(Grafelfmg: Resch, 2003). 

Lowry, Charles W. Communism and Christ (New York: 
Morehouse-Graham Co., 1953). 

Lubac, Henri de. Christian Resistance to Anti-Semitism: 
Memories from 1940-1944 (San Francisco: Ignatius, 

Martin, Malachi. The Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul 
II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New 
World Order (New York: Touchstone, 1990). 

Matijevic, Margareta. Religious communities in Croatia 

from 1945 to 1991: Social causality of the dissent 
between Communist authorities and religious 
communities ’ leadership. Review of Croatian History 
Vol. II, no. 1,2007, 1 17. 

McCormick, Anne O’Hare. Vatican Journal 1921-1954 
(New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1957). 

McGum, Barrett. A Reporter Looks at the Vatican (New 
York: Coward-McCann, 1962). 

Medvedev, Zhores A. Gorbachev (New York: Norton, 

Memorandum to General Donovan from Fabian von 
Schlabrendorff dated October 25, 1945 (Subject: 
Relationship of the German Churches to Hitler), 
posted on the Internet by Cornell Law Library: 
Donovan Nuremberg Trial Collection, 

<http ://library2 . lawschool. Cornell. edu/donovan/pdf/Ni 
This memorandum is also printed in Leo Stein, Hitler 
Came for Niemoeller: The Nazi War against Religion 
253-57 (New York: Penguin Publishing Co., 2003 
reprint ed.). 

Merritt, Richard L. “Politics, Theater, and the East- West 
Struggle: The Theater as a Cultural Bridge in West 
Berlin, 1948-61,” 80 Political Science Quarterly, 

186 (June 1965). 

Merton, Thomas. Dancing in the Water of Life (San 
Francisco: Harper, 1998). 

Miller, Marion. / Was a Spy (Indianapolis & New York: 
Boss-Merrill, 1960). 

Mindszenty, J6szef Cardinal. Memoirs (New York: 
Macmillan & Co., 1974). 

Morgan, Thomas B. The Listening Post: Eighteen Years 

on Vatican Hill (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 

Muller, Joseph. Bis zur Letzten Konsequenz (Munich: 

Siiddeutscher Verlag, 1975). 

Murphy, David E. What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of 
Barbarossa (New Haven: Yale University Press, 

Murphy, Francis X. The Papacy Today (New York: 
Macmillan, 1981). 

Napolitano, Matteo L. & Andrea Tomielli. II Papa Che 
Salvo Gli Ebrei (Piemme, 2004). 

The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian 
Churches, documents prepared for the post-war 
Nuremberg trials, prepared by the Office of Strategic 
Services (OSS) Research and Analysis Branch, 

Posted on the Internet by Cornell Law Library: 
Donovan Nuremberg Trial Collection, 
Nielsen Jr., Niels C. Solzhenitsyn 's Religion (Nashville, 
TN: Nelson, 1975). 

O’Brien, Count Anthony Henry. Archbishop Stepinac: 

The Man and His Case (Westminster, MD: The 
Newman Bookshop, 1947). 

O’ Carroll, Michael. Pius XII: Greatness Dishonored 
(Dublin: Laetare Press, 1980). 

Pacepa, Ion Mihai. “Moscow’s Assault on the Vatican: 
The KGB made corrupting the Church a priority,” 

National Review Online, January 25, 2007. 

Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the 

Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination 
(Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2007). 

Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy 

(Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1987). 

Papee, Casimir. Pius XII e Polska (Rome: Editrice 
Studium, 1954). 

Parham, Sidney F. “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage: A 
Look at the Major Productions of ‘The Deputy,’” 
Educational Theatre Journal (October 1976) 28:3. 

Parkes, James. An Enemy of the People: Antisemitism 
(New York: Penguin Books, 1946). 

Pattee, Richard. The Case of Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac 
(Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1953). 

Patterson, Michael. Strategies of Political Theatre: Post- 
War British Playwrights (Cambridge University 
Press, 2003). 

Phayer, Michael. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 
1930-1965 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 
2001 ). 

Pius XII, The Holocaust, and the Cold War 

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008). 

Piscator, Erwin. The Political Theater (London: Eyre 
Methuen, H. Rorrison, trans., 1963). 

Pius XI, MU Brennender Sorge (1937). 

Pius XI und der Nationals ozialismus. Die Enzyklika ‘Mit 

Brennender Sorge ' vom 14 Mdrz 1937, (Paderbom: 
Ferdinand Schoningh, Heinz- Albert Raem ed., 1979). 

Pius XIL Orientales Omnes (1945). 

Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (1939). 

Pius XII and the Holocaust: A Reader (Catholic League 
Publications: Milwaukee, 1988). 

Pius XII: Selected Encyclicals and Addresses (Roman 
Catholic Books: Harrison, NY, 1995). 

The Pope Speaks: The Words of Pius XII (New York: 
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1940). 

Polmar, Norman, and Thomas B. Allen. The 

Encyclopedia of Espionage (New York: Gramercy 
Books, 1997). 

Prcela, John. Archbishop Stepinac in his Country ’s 

Church-State Relations (Scottsdale: Associate Book 
Publishers, 1990). 

Purdy, W. A. The Church on the Move (London: Hollis 
and Carter, 1966). 

Rayfield, Donald. Stalin and his Hangmen (New York: 
Random House, 2005). 

Raymond, Rev. M. The Man for This Moment: The Life 
and Death of Aloysius Stepinac (Staten Island: Alba 
House, 1971). 

Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich 
(New York: Harper, Walter Leibrecht, ed. 1959). 

Religion Under Siege: The Roman Catholic Church in 
Occupied Europe 1939-1950 (Peeters: Leuven, L. 

Gevers, and J. Bank, eds., 2007). 

Rhodes, Anthony. The Vatican in the Age of the 

Dictators: 1922-45 (London: Hodden and Stoughton, 

Romerstein, Herbert. Soviet Active Measures and 
Propaganda. Mackenzie Institute Paper No. 17 
(Toronto: Mackenzie Institute, 1989). 

Romerstein, Herbert & Eric Breindel. The Verona 

Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America ’s 
Traitors, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 
2000 ). 

Rychlak, Ronald J. Hitler, the War, and the Pope 
(Genesis Press, 2000; Our Sunday Visitor Press 
2000; 2^^ edition: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2010). 

The 1933 Concordat between Germany and the 

Holy See: A Reflection of Tense Relations, 2001 The 
Digest 23 (Syracuse University). 

Book Review: “Pius XII und Deutschland, by 

Michael F. Feldkamp,” The English Historical 
Review, June 2003, at 840. 

Cardinal Stepinac and the Roman Catholic 

Church in Croatia during the Second World War 
(published in English and Croatian) in Stepinac: A 
Witness to the Truth (Zagreb: Glas Koncila, 2009). 

“Postwar Catholics, Jewish Children, and a Rush 

to Judgment,”, posted Jan. 18, 2005 
(including sidebar: “Jewish Children After World 

War II: A Case Study”). Reprinted in Inside the 
Vatican, January-Febmary 2005. 

Righteous Gentiles: How Pope Pius XII Saved 

Half a Million Jews from the Nazis (Dallas: Spence 
Publishing, 2005). 

Sale, Giovanni. Hitler, La Santa Sede e Gli Ebrei (Rome: 
Jaca Book, 2004). 

II Novecento tra Genocidi, Paure e Speranze 

(Milan: Jaca Book, 2006). 

Savor, Michael. Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, ‘A Servant 
of God and the Croatian People” (revised ed. 2001) 

Schlabrendorff, Fabian von. The Secret War against 
Hitler (New York: Pitman Publishing, Hilda Simon 
trans., 1965). 

Schmidt-Hauer, Christian. Gorbachev: The Path to Power 
(London: I. B. Tauris, 1986). 

Shevchenko, Arkady N. Breaking with Moscow (New 
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985). 

Shirer, William L. Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign 
Correspondent 1934-1941 (New York: Alfred A. 
Knopf, 1941). 

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History oj 

Nazi Germany (Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, 

Smit, Jan Olav. Angelic Shepherd: The Life of Pope Pius 
XII (New York: Dodd & Mead, Vanderveldt trans.. 


Solovyov, Vladimir, and Elena Klepikova. Behind the 
High Kremlin Walls (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1986). 

Staar, Richard Felix. Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union 
(Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford 
University, 1991). 

Stanescu, Sorin Rosea, and Cornel Dumitrescu. Autopsia 
unei Inscenari Securiste (The Autopsy of a Securitate 
Framing) (Bucharest: Omega Ziua, 1999). 

Stein, Leo. Hitler Came for Niemoeller: The Nazi War 
Against Religion (New York: Penguin, 2003). 

Stephan, Robert W. Death to Spies: The Story of 
SMERSH (Soviet Military Counterintelligence 
During World War II). Thesis. American University, 

Stepinac: A Witness to the Truth (Zagreb: Glas Koncila, 
Zeljko Tanjic ed., 2009). 

Stewart, Ralph. Pope Pius XII and the Jews (St. Martin de 
Porres Dominican Community & St. Joseph 
Canonical Foundation: New Hope, KY, 1990). 

Stilinovic, Josip. “Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac — A Patriot, 
not a Nationalist,” The Catholic World Report 
(August/September 1998) 

<http ://www. catholicculture. org/culture/library/view. ( 

Stille, Alexander. Benevolence and Betrayal: Five Italian 

Jewish Families under Fascism (New York: Summit 
Books, 1991). 

The Storm over the Deputy (New York: Grove Press, Eric 
Bently, ed., 1964). 

The Strategy of Deception: A Study in World-Wide 
Communist Tactics (New York: Farrar, Straus and 
Company, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, ed., 1963). 

Sulner, Hanna F. Disputed Documents: New Methods for 
Examining Questioned Documents (Dobbs Ferry, 
N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1966). 

Swift, Mary Grace. The Art of Dance in the USSR: A 
Study of Politics, Ideology, and Culture (University